House Republicans Fight Back

Wednesday, December 4, America heard from four Constitutional “experts” about their opinions of impeachment, its foundation, its purposes, its past uses, and how the Constitutional guidelines determine its appropriate uses. At the end of it all, we are no closer to firm and final answers about impeachment as it applies to what is happening in Washington today than we did six months ago. Democrats are on a quest and continually exist in “Dump-Trump” mode. Republicans are on a quest, too. Theirs is “Let’s get about conducting legislative business for the American people.”

Do you notice any similarities in thought between Dems and the GOP? Neither do I. But, as promised, we at TruthNewsNetwork are committed to bringing you the facts that we can discern through research of every applicable D.C. matter that impacts Americans. That promise applies to members and issues of both parties, issues that arise daily in Congress, the White House, and the Judiciary, and every applicable matter in U.S. foreign relations that impact our nation. Here’s our analysis of “Impeach Trump, Part III.”

“Where’s the Beef?”

Democrats have not veered away from their one unified cry about Mr. Trump since even before he won the 2016 election: “We don’t like him. We think he’s unfit to serve as President. We will do anything and everything we can do to drive him out of the White House and even from Washington, D.C.” The only things that have changed in the three years of Mr. Trump’s first term as President are the bullets in the Democrats’ “Dump-Trump” gun they have used. They are Trump Campaign Russian Collusion, the Mueller Investigation, Obstruction of Justice, Emoluments Clause violations, and now we find ourselves in “Ukraine-Gate Part III.” Who’s universally in all of these? Rep. Adams Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Of course, the President is universal in all of this. If he’d go away, so would the faux impeachment!

House Republicans on Monday, December 2, released a report of evidence in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, in which they affirmed none of the Democrats’ witnesses have proof of President Donald Trump’s involvement in bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.

And by working to impeach President Trump since his election, 231 House Democrats are trying to undo the will of nearly 63 million American people who chose him as the 45th president of the United States.

The following are the key findings from the report presented by House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul (R-Texas).

  • President Trump has a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.
  • President Trump has a long-held skepticism of U.S. foreign assistance and believes that Europe should pay its fair share for mutual defense.
  • President Trump’s concerns about Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma Holdings’ board are valid. The Obama State Department noted concerns about Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma in 2015 and 2016.
  • There is indisputable evidence that senior Ukrainian government officials opposed President Trump in 2016 and did so publicly. It has been reported that a Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative worked with Ukrainian officials, including the Ukrainian Embassy, to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump.
  • The evidence does not establish that President Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election to benefit him in the 2020 election.
  • The evidence does not establish that President Trump withheld a meeting with President Zelenskiy to pressure Ukraine to investigate Burisma, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.
  • The evidence does not support that President Trump withheld U.S. security assistance to Ukraine to pressure Ukraine to investigate Burisma, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.
  • The evidence does not support that President Trump orchestrated a shadow foreign policy apparatus to pressure Ukraine to investigate Burisma, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.
  • The evidence does not support that President Trump covered up the substance of his telephone conversation with President Zelenskiy by restricting access to the call summary.
  • President Trump’s assertion of longstanding claims of executive privilege is a legitimate response to an unfair, abusive, and partisan process, and does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry.

In summary, House Republicans said the evidence in the Democrats’ probe does not prove their allegations that President Trump abused his authority to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, a potential political rival, for his benefit in the 2020 election. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy again affirmed he did not discuss with President Donald Trump about a “quid pro quo” involving the withholding of military aid to Ukraine from the United States, which is at the center of the House impeachment inquiry against the president.

In an interview with published on Monday, Dec. 2, Zelenskiy said, “I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. Zelenskiy was answering the question, “When did you first sense that there was a connection between Trump’s decision to block military aid to Ukraine this summer and the two investigations for which Trump and his allies were asking? Can you clarify this issue of the quid pro quo?”

“I don’t want us to look like beggars,” he continued. “But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying,” he added.

This is not the first time Zelenskiy denied the accusation of wrongdoing regarding a phone call between him and President Trump. In October, the Ukrainian president also affirmed: “there was no blackmail” in their July phone call, and there were no “conditions” from the American side.


Yep: this is brief today. Why is it so short? There’s not much to discuss!

What we could do is spend a bunch of your time going back over all the “what-if’s” and “if-only’s.” But we’d still be here next month and probably next year trying to ascertain what this Democrat charade is going to morph into. Until we arrive at the end of all that, we are no longer going to “speculate.” We’ll just let the actions of the Left tell us what they are going to do.

Yes, it appears that House Democrats are going to send to the Floor Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. Probably, the vote on at least several of the likeliest Articles will be approved. And then the Senate will examine whatever Articles of Impeachment make the trip across the Hall.

If that happens, the fun will begin!

Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing that can be funny about all of this. But know this for sure: if a Senate impeachment trial actually occurs, every bit of the dirty laundry from the past four to six years will be brought before the American public through witness and document subpoenas. And it all will be exposed every day INTERNATIONALLY!

Just imagine that witness list: James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strozk, Peter Steele, James Clapper, John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, etc.

Don’t forget about three witnesses that will undoubtedly appear before the Senate: former Vice President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and even former President Barack Obama.

Do Democrats want all of the wrongdoing on the part of their minions in the Deep State to appear daily for the next year on national television? Do they want to take the chance that members of their own “crew” will face indictment(s), millions of dollars in legal defense costs, public embarrassment and humiliation, and the destruction of their personal and professional lives, all in an attempt to rid D.C. of President Trump?

“Hey Nancy: Tag, You’re It!”


1 thought on “House Republicans Fight Back”

  1. Everett and Ann

    63 million Americans vs. 3 liberal professors

    The worst-kept secret in Washington is that House Democrats have already made up their minds about impeachment. Despite the far left’s relentless push for three years to undo the 2016 election, Democrat leaders are trying to make you believe that their process is a fair and nonpartisan one.

    No American is buying that sales pitch.

    It’s little wonder why. After two weeks of testimony from “fact witnesses”—most of whom had never even so much as met President Donald J. Trump—public support for impeachment has only fallen. So today, Congress called on four “legal experts” to try to give some Constitutional cover to their scheme.

    Bombshell moment: This would be the first impeachment in history without evidence of a crime.

    You won’t be shocked to learn that three of these four witnesses turned out to have a lengthy history of animosity toward President Trump:

    Prof. Pamela Karlan is a Democratic donor who suggested the 2016 election could be “illegitimate.” She first raised the prospect of impeaching President Trump in 2016—before he even took office. She’s also argued against the Trump Administration in court.

    Prof. Noah Feldman has spent nearly 3 years calling for impeachment—for any reason you can imagine. Less than two months after Inauguration Day, Feldman was arguing for impeachment . . . because of a tweet. He even called for impeachment because he disliked the President’s (perfectly Constitutional) use of the pardon power.

    Prof. Michael Gerhardt spent years working for Democratic officials and campaigns, repeatedly helping Democratic senators fight to block the appointment of conservative judges and justices—including now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    Zero self-awareness—that’s what it takes for House Democrats, in the midst of an effort to persuade mainstream Americans that Democrats are being fair, to call in liberal professors who are just as partisan as they are.

    But there was one expert that Democrats probably wish wasn’t on the House floor today. Legal scholar Jonathan Turley, who says he isn’t a Trump supporter and didn’t vote for the President, highlighted everything wrong with Democrats’ sham process with just one line.

    If you impeach this President, Turley said, “It is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power,” he told Congressional Democrats.

    “My personal views of President Trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote,” he said to the House Judiciary Committee panel. “I’m concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.”

    You won’t find a better explanation of this impeachment sham than that.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.