MARK LEVIN: The Next Democrat President Must be Impeached

By Mark R. Levin

I am of the opinion that the next Democrat president must be impeached.

That's the only way to stop this.

If the Republicans control the House, they must impeach the next Democrat President to ensure this sort of thing is never repeated.

The next Democrat President must be impeached? What are grounds? It doesn't matter.

With Trump, they were talking impeachment when he was a candidate. They were talking impeachment the day he got elected. I told you, this is all sham. It's a scam. It's a ruse.

The only way to stop them is to turn the political and impeachment guns on them.

The next Democrat president must be impeached.

The Republican Congress can take a page from Nadler, from Waters, from Engel, from Schiff and all the rest.

JONATHAN TURLEY ON IMPEACHMENT: Dividing Rage From Reason

By Jonathan Turley

My name is Jonathan Turley, and I am a law professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law.

It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss one of the most solemn and important constitutional functions bestowed on this House by the Framers of our Constitution: the impeachment of the President of the United States.

Twenty-one years ago, I sat here before you, Chairman Nadler, and other members of the Judiciary Committee to testify on the history and meaning of the constitutional impeachment standard as part of the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. I never thought that I would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president. Yet, here we are. Some elements are strikingly similar.

DiGENOVA: An "Impeachment" Constructed of Lies

By Joseph DiGenova

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has been trying to overturn the 2016 election from day one, and he isn’t about to let something as trivial as the truth get in his way.

Schiff has pursued that aim relentlessly for the past three years, jumping from one conspiracy theory to another—from Russia to Ukraine, from tax returns to absurd “dossiers,” from Robert Mueller to Michael Avenatti, and back again. All the while, he has revealed his naked partisan motivations and portrayed himself as some kind of defender of truth.

In reality, everything about Schiff’s still-fruitless crusade against our duly-elected president is built on lies. The dishonesty runs back to the very beginning of the Trump presidency. Just one month after Inauguration Day, for instance, Schiff was gleefully reading juicy tidbits from the blatantly fraudulent Steele dossier into the Congressional Record.

EXCLUSIVE: Official Democrat Whistleblower Complaint Form [TDS-17.4]

Discovered by Biff Spackle (@BiffSpackle on Twitter)

Official Democrat Whistleblower Complaint Form [TDS-17.4]

Name [will be held absolutely confidential until it's necessary we leak it]:
Email address:
Cell number:

Type of Complaint:
Note: if the nature of your complaint has to do with Trump's tweets, please use form TDS-69.9)
Trump executed Muslims and put alligators in the Rio Grande to bite border-crossers
I am repulsed by Trump’s tweets
I'd like to find a way to stop Trump, can you connect me with a New York Times reporter
Adam Schiff is an inspiration, I would like to help him however I can
Orange Man Bad
Trump is investigating the origins of the 2016 Russia hoax
I’ll come up with something, trust me

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the media?

MARK LEVIN: The Only Way to Stop the Democrats

By Mark Levin

James Comey, who we now know was informed fully about the falsity of the dirty dossier, and who signed the first FISA warrant, appears to be in the most legal jeopardy, not President Donald J. Trump.

What ought to happen here is, there ought to be a grand jury impaneled. Comey should give testimony, Andrew McCabe should give testimony, James Baker should give testimony, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, the whole cabal, they all should be giving testimony. They should get a little bit of their own medicine.

We should have a criminal grand jury, and we should have either a Special Counsel or a United States Attorney take charge of this case and get to the bottom of it. Put these people under oath and let them get the Donald Trump treatment. We want all of their documents. No privileges, nothing. Drag them in and maybe drag their kids in too.

But I wanted to talk about something else because Nancy Pelosi's quite ubiquitous these days. She's barely coherent. She is a constitutional illiterate, but that’s the person they chose as the Speaker of the House.

And I got to thinking that she's very, very, very rich. She's a multimillionaire. I don't really care about that. She has a husband. People don't even know, but his name is Paul Pelosi. He's a San Francisco real estate developer. He's a financial investor. So tell me: how did the Pelosis make their money?

Untangling the ‘Collusion’ Web

By Roger Kimball

Most people reading this will know Sir Walter Scott’s famous couplet (from the narrative poem Marmion):

Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!

Less well known, but undeservedly so, is the excellent completing couplet by J. R. Pope, published under the sly title “A Word of Encouragement”:

But when we’ve practiced for a while,
How vastly we improve our style!

Indeed. You really have to give it to the suits in Barack Obama’s intelligence services and Department of Justice (many of whom, of course, are still strutting about in Donald Trump’s administration). It was quite a web they wove, and tangled with complexity. Yet their prodigious practice also made it nearly impenetrable to anyone not inside their charmed circle.

MARK LEVIN: A Time for Truth Regarding President Trump, Campaign Finance Laws and Indictment Hysteria

By Mark R. Levin

1. A sitting president cannot be indicted. That’s official DOJ policy since 1973. Neither the Special Counsel nor the Southern District of New York (SDNY) nor Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein can defy that 45-year-old policy.

2. The SDNY is not expert in campaign finance violations and neither is the Clinton-appointed district judge. They rarely handle campaign finance cases.

The left-wing media and politicians are regurgitating what the prosecutors have merely filed in their own self-serving brief. The media and others intentionally refuse to look at the actual rules and context. They refuse to even question what these prosecutors have thrown together.

3. The actual campaign rules and context do not include Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) or an infinite variety of other contracts, payments, arrangements, acts of a private nature, etc. as campaign contributions. These represent normal human behavior and were never intended to be regulated or reported.

SDNY is dead wrong. And these private payments can be made in any manner or any amount. Again, they’re private payments involving private matters. To underscore, there is no reporting requirement because they’re not campaign payments made with or without campaign funds.