In a new Op-Ed for Fox News, Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn calls the impeachment trial a “political farce” and argues no more witnesses and documents are needed.
Senator Marsha Blackburn also expressed her opinion via a colorful tweet, where she wrote:
Adam Schiff always wanted to be a screenwriter.
Listening to Schiff and the House managers reminds me of what my old neighbor, the late Senator Fred Thompson, would say: “ .”
Tuesday afternoon, moments before the onset of the third presidential impeachment trial in American history, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had a moment of clarity.
Before the House impeachment managers kicked off their case, Schumer remarked that “the eyes of the Founding Fathers are upon us.”
The senator from New York was correct: history, not the Senate, will pass final judgment on the impeachment of President Trump.
This is exactly why the House impeachment managers spent the remainder of their speaking time trying to rewrite their own three-year narrative on impeachment. Chief revisionist Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, began by asserting that the House Democrats have compiled evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by the president.
Later, however, Schiff revealed that the over 100 hours of testimony, and thousands of pages of documents, that led to his conclusions simply weren’t enough. He then asked that the Senate fetch additional evidence he neglected to secure.
The fact is that the House impeachment managers’ case – some may call it a vendetta – relies not on missing evidence, but on a vicious partisan hatred of President Trump that survived the initial impeachment proceedings.
House Democrats dressed up their demands for a parade of witnesses and fresh subpoenas by arguing that they are simply seeking fairness and transparency. They knew that argument would play well with the anti-Trump media.
But if you lift the veil, you’ll find the Democrats are really engaged in a lazy, intellectually dishonest attempt to force the Senate to do the House’s dirty work.
Long before the House Intelligence Committee held its first impeachment hearing, House Democrats knew they were in for an uphill battle. They knew whose testimony they wanted, and they knew with absolute certainty that they would need to “pierce” executive privilege to get it.
It was a nonstarter. Any effort to get around executive privilege would have taken their inquiry out of the safe, comfortable realm of politics and sent it into the courts – a dangerous place for constitutionally defective arguments.
This is why, for example, the Intelligence Committee yanked its subpoena of former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s top deputy (and never actually issued a subpoena for Bolton himself), rather than risk litigation over the highly sensitive testimony it requested. Instead, the House committee punted the issue down the hall and simply demanded that the Senate summon Bolton to testify.
Read more here.