On Wednesday, in a 230-197 vote, the House of Representatives impeached President Trump. This is now supposed to go to the Senate to potentially remove him from office, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has threatened to withhold the articles from the Senate.
Protracted efforts to impeach Trump over various different issues have been ongoing since Trump took office. Most recently, this centered on military aid to Ukraine and allegations that President Trump withheld that aid in trying to get Ukraine’s government to investigate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
The Biden allegations were based heavily on second-hand and third-hand testimony from officials who thought something like that might be going on. Testimony within the House hearings, especially from legal scholars, looked to broaden this away from the Trump vs. Biden narrative, likely because there wasn’t great evidence that this actually happened.
It was at this point that they started emphasizing the withholding of military aid to Ukraine in and of itself as a possible impeachable offense, with Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan arguing that the US must provide deadly arms to Ukraine to fight Russia “so we don’t have to fight them over here.”
This puts the impeachment on a flimsy proposition, that the US must arm Ukraine to fight Russia. There are plenty of policy arguments to be made against this, not the least of which being that other nations are trying to broker peace in Eastern Ukraine, the US sending deadly arms during that process undermines the effort.
And even then, historical precedent back to the Johnson impeachment has established that the House is not supposed to impeach a president merely over policy disagreements, and there is certainly no legal standard which obliges the president to arm Ukraine.
That’s certainly not the way the government has been treating Ukraine arms, either. President Obama was keen to aid Ukraine, but limited it to non-lethal aid. President Trump by contrast actually has been sending lethal aid to Ukraine, with an eye toward picking fights with Russia.
Ironically, the Senate was particularly critical of Trump during the time when Ukraine’s military aid was on hold, though it is generally accepted that even if Pelosi forwards the impeachment to them, the Senate will not remove him from power.
The unspoken reality,
it’s the Dem’s in the senate who are balking against Pelosi.
Why?
Because they don’t want to be the sacrificial dupes making a suicide run
with a nothingburger “impeachment”,
that has NOTHING in it!
A Repub controlled senate will have them filleted like shanked tuna.
Democrats are barking at the wrong tree.
Trump should be impeached, but for completely different reasons. One of them is his loyalty for Israel (MIGA) – putting Israeli interests above our national interests.
But of course, democrats will not impeach themselves – there is no difference between the two parties in imperialism, militarism and war (see the last vote on military spending).
And, Democrats rational for the impeachment only reflected their true face – hypocrites, imperialists.
Hypocrites: Democrats have discovered the constitution. Where had they been when Obama violated the constitution via arresting whistle blowers, killing American citizens, and attacking other nations without congressional approval.
Imperialists: Since when Ukraine is part of our national security?
Again, Trump has to go, but for completely different reasons. The problem – currently, the only sane democrat is Tulsi, who is unelectable; an American catch.
“Protracted efforts to impeach Trump over various different issues have been ongoing since Trump took office.”
Blatant lie.
“The Biden allegations were based heavily on second-hand and third-hand testimony from officials who thought something like that might be going on.”
Blatant lie.
“Testimony within the House hearings, especially from legal scholars, looked to broaden this away from the Trump vs. Biden narrative, likely because there wasn’t great evidence that this actually happened.”
Blatant lie.
Really just a swell job distorting the truth to push your pro-Trump narrative Raw Story. You should be ashamed of this drivel.
—–
“Protracted efforts to impeach Trump over various different issues have been ongoing since Trump took office.”
Blatant lie.
—–
Not exactly. There have in fact been several attempts to introduce articles of impeachment v. Trump since he took office.
And Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic House leadership smacked down every one of them, until this one.
But yeah, the other two quotes are false, dumb, and embarrassing to see offered up as “reporting” on Antiwar.com.
just total BS theater
If the House hasn’t sent their articles of impeachment to the senate,
per the Constitution,
the president, in fact, has not been impeached yet.
The House only has a vote.
Without the Constitutionally mandated conveyance to the senate
it remains just that, only a House vote.
You might want to actually read the Constitution before pretending to cite it.
The House has the sole power of impeachment. If they pass articles of impeachment, and they have, the president has, in fact, been impeached.
The Senate has the sole power to conduct the impeachment trial. There’s a Senate rule — not a constitutional provision — that says they start that trial once the House appoints managers. The Senate can change that rule any time they like, with a simple majority vote (the Republicans have a majority). If they want, they can bring in the contestants from the last episode of The Gong Show to be prosecutors.
The Constitution clearly states the House must deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate,
not doing so reduces their vote to just that, ONLY a vote.
Not distinguishable from any other, … vote.
Impeachment requires a 2 part process incumbent on the House.
They, so far, have only performed one part of that process.
“The Constitution clearly states the House must deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate”
By all means, please tell me which article it “clearly states” that in. It must be one of the super-secret classified articles that appear in no printed copy or web page version of the Constitution I’ve ever seen.
Let me help, from the Democrat House’s Constitutional scholar:
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/noah-feldman-impeachment-trump-pelosi/2019/12/20/id/946844/
Translation: You can’t cite where it says that in the Constitution, because it doesn’t say that in the Constitution.
The only congressional actions which have to be “delivered” — actually, “presented” — to anyone are those on which “the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary,” and they are presented to the president for his signature or veto. That’s Article I, Section 7.
All that’s required for a congressional action to have actually occurred is that the action be entered in the journal of proceedings of the house which passed it (Article I, Section 5).
Feldman is right: The Constitution “doesn’t say how fast the article must go to the Senate.” Because it doesn’t say that they “have to go to the Senate” at all.
Are you a Constitutional scholar Tom?
Didn’t think so.
A vote in the House is only that, a vote.
It can’t be anything else until action is taken to move it to the next Constitutional jurisdiction.
MOVING the articles of impeachment to the senate accomplishes “impeachment”.
As it sits, it’s nothing, just a House vote.
The House is agreed, in principle “to impeach” (future tense),
but without the necessary step of moving it out of the House, into the senate for trial, it just sits, inert.
It’s just a vote,
the –move on– to the senate is the impeachment.
Which, so far, hasn’t happened
Even the Dem’s own Constitutional scholar— agrees.
Hypothetical: if the House never moves it to the senate, what is it?
Ans. a vote “to impeach”. That’s all.
If it never leaves the House that is all it ever will be,
a vote “TO impeach”.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Ebullient Gift-Giving Season,
Bang Kwanzaa, or none of the above
but best wishes, and adios!
stokr,
You made a claim. That claim was that that the constitution “clearly states” something that it not only doesn’t “clearly state,” but doesn’t even mention at all.
The House “moves” a bill to the Senate by passing that bill, full stop.
In the official sense, the Senate can be expected to know what bills have been passed by the House by consulting the House Journal.
In reality, of course, the House and Senate work closely together, keep careful track of what each other are doing, have staff whose job it is to reconcile bills to get the two houses on the same page.
But no, there is no constitutionally required religious ceremony in which Nancy Pelosi has to stand barefoot outside the Senate chamber and quote the Bhagavad-Gita while monks sing Gregorian chants in order to make an act of the House official.
As far as impeachment — rather than conviction — that doesn’t have to “move” to the Senate at all. The Constitution clearly and unambiguously assigns SOLE power of impeachment to the House. When the votes were cast, the gavel was pounded, and the clerk typed the result into the House Journal, Trump was impeached. He will remain impeached whether the Senate exercises its power to try him on the charges in that impeachment or not.
Enjoy whatever holiday you and yours celebrate as well (some of my family are Christian, some non-religious, some neo-pagan, so it’s pretty much a combination of Christmas/Yule/general good cheer around here)!
Tom, —sending—- the articles of impeachment is the action of impeachment, that simple.
The Constitution clearly implies
(not specifically stated but OBVIOUSLY necessary)
a progression needed for the act of impeachment to occur i.e. sending it on for adjudication.
Voting —to take an action—without actually taking that action,
neuters the entire affair.
As is, we are left with merely a vote to take the action.
Without the action, it’s just a vote.
“The Constitution clearly implies (not specifically stated but OBVIOUSLY necessary) a progression needed for the act of impeachment to occur i.e. sending it on for adjudication.”
On the contrary, the Constitution specifically states the opposite. It gives the House SOLE power to impeach.
Impeachment has occurred, full stop. What has not occurred is trial OF that impeachment, which the Senate has sole power over.
Obviously there must be a mechanism for the Senate to know what the House has done.
The only dispositive evidence of what the House has done is the content of the House Journal, but of course there are other (neither constitutionally mandated nor created) mechanisms for communication such as the GPO’s “Congressional Record” and/or any protocols which House and Senate leadership may have set up to make such communication easier.
What there is not, in the Constitution anyway, is any requirement for some special process under which Pelosi “transmits” or “submits” or “sends” the impeachment to the Senate.
Impeachment is pseudonymous with charging.
The House voted “to charge” the president.
But the act of charging the president involves taking the necessary step to submit charges for trial, moving it to the senate.
It’s analogous to a DA saying he is going to charge you, but never submitting those charges for trial. If he never files those charges, are you charged? Of course not.
We have a House vote, we do not have a charge before the senate.
They haven’t taking that necessary action yet,
all they have done is to agree that they should.
In any case,
this unprecedented delay (or abdication) exposes the farce they have wrought.
You can make shit up all day long. That doesn’t change the fact that once the votes have been recorded in the House Journal, it’s done. There are no “necessary steps” for the House beyond that.
IF—-you never FILE charges, nothing happened,
just a dumb “look at us” vote.
Impeachment requires an action.
If they sit on this it will be dismissed just like a criminal charge. It will essentially be a failure to prosecute and be entered as a default judgment against the House and the charges dropped like it never happened. The House could then end up in hot water for abuse of power, malicious prosecution, abuse of office, etc. etc. etc.. Just because it is impeachment does not mean there are no consequences or remedies available to the Senate for failing to send the articles. Criminal procedures can be adopted in response to withholding or failing to prosecute.
PS: I’m not the one “making this up”,
it’s coming from the Democrat’s Constitutional expert, now that’s funny..
You might want to read what Feldman actually wrote, if you can’t be bothered to read the Constitution before making claims as to what it “clearly states.”
He 1) makes an assertion, 2) says that it’s unclear how that assertion would work, and 3) cites not one single word of the Constitution to support the assertion.
Just because you WANT to believe that the Constitution commands some kind of special magical ceremony of “transmission” or “submission” between House and Senate, that doesn’t make it so.
The ONLY person or institution to which the Constitution requires congressional action to be “presented” is the POTUS, and that’s only for specific types of congressional action (laws passed by both houses or resolutions which require the concurrence of both houses — impeachment being specifically excluded from the latter category by the Constitution assigning the House SOLE POWER over it).
What the Constitution requires is for the House and Senate to maintain official journals in which their actions are published. Those journals would be the source documents from which one house officially learns of the proceedings of the other. Anything else is a matter of custom and convenience, not constitutional requirement.
The House, having SOLE power to impeach, voted to impeach and published that action in its official journal. That’s the extent of its constitutional responsibilities in the matter.
You don’t have to like these facts. They’re facts whether you like them or not, and no amount of clicking your heels together and wishing will magically create a constitutional requirement for the House to send a troupe of dancing girls, strolling violinists and acrobatic monkeys to the Senate to “transmit” anything.
I grant you all of that,
but nevertheless an impeachment is not an impeachment until articles are filed, transferred, whatever—-for adjudication.
Because with that act, adjudication begins.
Without that, nothing begins, there is no adjudication.
That action, and only that action,
constitute an impeachment.
Anything short of submitting articles for adjudication,
is just playing dress up.
Those and only those, are the relevant facts.
“I WISH I WISH I WISH I WISH” isn’t “relevant facts.”
It’s just you making shit up about how you wish things were and pretending things are that way.
I’ve explained to you how things actually are.
That’s how they are no matter how hard you wish otherwise.
What’s happening in the senate right now,
nothing.
What will happen without the House’s articles of impeachment,
nothing.
Did the framers envision “impeachment” without a trial,
no.
There is no “wishing” about it,
NOTHING is going to happen unless
articles come to the senate.
Absolutely nothing.
The only asterisk that will be applicable is on a House that sat on their own “impeachment” vote.
Once the House voted on the articles of impeachment, passed, them, and recorded the passage in the body’s journal, impeachment was a fact. There is no “asterisk” under which the House can “sit on their own impeachment vote” once they’ve taken it.
The matter is now the Senate’s to act on (or not, as it chooses). Just like every other bill. There is no magic “coming to the Senate” mechanism.
SENATE rules say that the Senate acts when the House sends managers for the trial. But those rules can be changed at any time.
The Constitution stipulates that an impeachment get a trial.
Yet, there is no trial.
Precisely because, there was no impeachment.
Further the senate will not act, without articles of impeachment.
So nothing of consequence happened in the House, yet,
except a Pelosi stunt.
“The Constitution stipulates that an impeachment get a trial”
No, it doesn’t. It specifies that the Senate has “sole power” to try impeachments — just as it specifies other powers with Congress may exercise, or may not exercise if it chooses not to.
“Further the senate will not act, without articles of impeachment.”
And there are articles of impeachment. They’ve been passed, and their passage has been published. Which gives the Senate something to hold a trial over, if it decides to. No magical “transmission” ceremonies required with impeachment any more than with any other kind of bill.
From Alan Dershowitz:
“I can imagine nothing more
unconstitutional than a House impeachment without sending it to the
Senate,” Dershowitz said. “It’s just unheard of. The Constitution
provides that it is a two-step process, not a one-step process. It
doesn’t say the president may be impeached, period, that’s the end of
the matter. It says the president may be impeached, and if he’s
impeached by the House, the Senate then gets to decide whether he should be removed.
“The idea
that a stain would remain on the books, that the president would remain impeached, without an opportunity for the president to get acquitted by the Senate, is plainly unconstitutional,” he added. “It would be as if a prosecutor decided he had insufficient evidence to get a conviction, so he went after an ordinary citizen and said, ‘Look, I’m just going to indict him. Let the public know he’s indicted. For the rest of his life, he will stand indicted. But I have no intention of bringing him to
trial. I will deny him his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. I’m
going to let the indictment just hang out there.’ Obviously, no judge
would tolerate that.”
Even Pelosi “thinks” she can delay the senate trial BY WITHHOLDING the articles until the senate agrees with her ground rules!
I have provided 2 Constitutional professors, Feldman and Dershowitz
both Democrats no less, who agree with me.
You have not identified anyone who agrees with you.
There will not be a trial until
the House actually impeaches the president
by formerly bringing the case to the senate for trial.
Until then nothing has happened.
Thanks for having Dershowitz confirm that I’m right.
The impeachment was “sent to the Senate” by entering it in the House Journal.
Pelosi doesn’t think the articles were sent
she thinks she has the senate stalled to gain “leverage”.
And Dersh is appalled by the delay. Dersh did not confirm your assertion.
Pelosi says she may wait to appoint House managers.
That would delay the trial insofar as there’s a Senate rule that starts the clock on the trial once those managers are appointed.
There is no House rule, Senate rule, statute or constitutional provision that says the House hasn’t acted until Nancy Pelosi marches down Pennsylvania Avenue in nothing but high heels and a feather boa to “transmit” them.
You might want to actually read the official records of past impeachment actions. The House Journal for Andrew Johnson’s impeachment includes the votes for each article, and the election of managers. It includes nothing about “transmitting” the matter to the Senate, because there’s no such thing in American history or law.
Pelosi can wait for h3ll to freeze over, Trump is not impeached until she completes the second part of her duties.
The House managers brought the articles to the senate re. Andrew Johnson’s impeachment. If/when Pelosi does the same, Trump will be impeached, not until.
Every time I think politics can’t get any dumber, it gets dumber.
Making shit up and pretending that it’s the law doesn’t make it the law.
Every time I think politics can’t get any dumber, it gets dumber.
Making shit up and pretending that it’s the law doesn’t make it the law.
“I can imagine nothing more
unconstitutional than a House impeachment without sending it to the
Senate,” Dershowitz said. “It’s just unheard of.”
“I agree with Dershowitz”, Thomas Knapp.
I see what you mean re. dumber.
So what is UN-Constitutional in Dershowitz’s opinion. Specifically not referring articles of impeachment to the senate for trial per the Constitution.
The senate is under no obligation to seek a House indictment (impeachment) if the House chooses not to bring it, indeed the senate is quit happy it hasn’t been brought.
The senate is therefore not involved because the House is blocking the process (UN-Constitutional, says Dershowitz)
You say those are only senate “rules” and rules can be changed, true, but there is no reason the senate wishes to change their rules,
and they don’t have to.
The “ball” remains in the House’s jurisdiction, and without moving it to the senate’s jurisdiction no trial can occur which is both UN-Constitutional and an impeachment that isn’t one!
At this point, Mitch McConnell has all the power.
If he doesn’t feel like conducting the trial yet, he can just go by the existing Senate rule that says the process begins when the House appoints “managers.”
If he does feel like conducting the trial, he can whip the majority he leads to change the Senate rule in any way he likes. He can give the House a deadline for appointing the managers, or he can arrange for the Senate to appoint prosecutors itself.
But there’s no question of the House “sending” the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Once they were recorded in the House Journal, Trump was impeached, and the matter became the Senate’s to dispose of.
The ONLY person who has to be “presented with” or “sent” congressional actions according to the Constitution is the president, and that’s only in the case of bills passed by, or resolutions requiring the concurrence of, both houses.
There’s no constitutional requirement for communications between the houses themselves at all; their official records separately and severably constitute their official acts.
For an executive branch analog, see the Federal Register. When a regulatory bureaucracy wants to implement a new rule, it publishes that rule in the Register. There are no arcane rituals involving parades, prayers, the slaughtering and sacrifice of livestock, etc. by which they “present” or “transmit” the proposal. Publishing it in the Register IS “presenting”/”transmitting” it.
The federal Registry is not analogous,
the Constitution requires a 2 part impeachment process.
The House to impeach, the senate to try.
Pelosi, UN-Constitutionally (so far), refuses to complete her part.
The senate is fine with that,
the entire matter, at this point, is null and void.
Any historical reference to impeachment, at this juncture,
would have the asterisk on the House’s UN-Constitutional behavior.
Pelosi has completed her part under the Constitution.
What she hasn’t completed is her part under Senate rules, which the Senate can change at its pleasure.
“So Article I was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. … So Article II was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.” — Congressional Record
The impeachment is constitutionally complete. The House’s constitutional role is finished. The trial belongs to the Senate under the Constitution.
No magical ceremonies of “transmission” are required by the Constitution, nor is the House required to appoint “managers” or the Senate to accept those “managers.” Those are internal rules which can be changed at will.
Wrong, Pelosi is the only one out of order here,
on that Feldman and Dershowitz agree.
In Dershowitz’s words entirely UN-Constitutional.
In Feldman’s words, it’s not an impeachment.
McConnell is not required to do anything at this point, and won’t.
He’ll just continue to let her twist in the wind.
Feldman made an assertion without offering any argument for that assertion, let alone citing any constitutional text or case law to support the assertion.
And Dershowitz was correct — it would have been a shame if Pelosi hadn’t sent the impeachment to the Senate, by holding a vote on it and recording that vote.
No matter how fast you dance and how high you kick your legs and how fervently wish, not magical requirement to “transmit” the articles of impeachment to the Senate will appear anywhere.
You’re right that McConnell isn’t required to do anything, though.
Yet, you cannot cite any Constitutional expert who shares your position.
Not one.
Feldman,
no referral to the senate equals no impeachment;
Pelosi,
makes no bones about refusing to refer articles to the senate, purposely to gain leverage against the senate;
Dershowitz,
condemns Pelosi’s non-action as blatantly UN-Constitutional;
McConnell,
smiling, because there is nothing that has materially entered his senatorial jurisdiction, and will wait for Pelosi to refer, or if she doesn’t, move for a dismissal based on lack of evidence.
Then there is you, alone, willingly accepting Pelosi’s stunt as both Constitutional and complete.
Stunningly myopic.
While nevertheless, the facts in the matter remain
immutable, inescapable and irrefutable.
“Yet, you cannot cite any Constitutional expert who shares your position”
What makes you think that? Does the name “Jonathan Turley” ring any bells?
As far as Pelosi’s stunt is concerned, the precise REASON it’s a stunt and a fail is that there’s no constitutional requirement whatsoever for special religious ceremonies of “referral” of article of impeachment or any other bill from the the House to the Senate, nor has there ever been any such requirement, and in the case of impeachment the Constitution is even more clear that there couldn’t possibly be any such requirement (“SOLE power”).
So she’s waving a completely empty gun. Once the vote was taken and recorded, the House had exercised what power it had, the power to impeach, and the matter was no longer under her control.
Is an indictment, not filed, an indictment?
No.
Irrelevant. The impeachment was “filed” when the votes were cast and entered in the House Journal. There is no special magical ceremony for “transmitting” such things to the Senate, any more than the president has to do a tap dance in tie and tails with a magical cane after he signs a bill to “transmit” it to the public.
Now Nancy reports they are considering additions, so it’s not concluded.
When it is ready and final would be signaled by a referral to the senate for trial.
No one knows the status of it until it is filed with the court.
If I’m Trump, the injured party at this point,
I would give her 30 days to refer it to the senate for trial–OR–charge HER PERSONALLY with false prosecution, prosecutorial malfeasance, obstruction of justice, slander and liable.
As it stands, it’s nothing,
but a personal injury suit waiting to happen.
“Now Nancy reports they are considering additions, so it’s not concluded.”
So if you’re charged with murder, you haven’t been charged with murder if the prosecutor considers additionally charging you with rape?
“No one knows the status of it until it is filed with the court.”
Which it was, on December 18th.
“If I’m Trump, the injured party at this point, I would give her 30 days to refer it to the senate for trial”
That’s nice. She referred it to the Senate for trial six days ago.
Not according to McConnell. There has been no regular order,
and McConnell will do nothing with it until there is.
As he should.
If McConnell wants to wait, he’s free to wait.
If McConnell wants to act, he’s free to act.
The Senate has sole power of trial, so it’s all up to McConnell now that the House has clearly, unambiguously, irrefutably, and officially exercised its sole power to impeach.
McConnell has no need to act and won’t.
This is Pelosi’s mess, nobody else’s.
I neither know nor care whether you’re engaging in misinformation (unintentionally false claims regarding impeachment) or disinformation (intentionally false claims regarding impeachment).
But it’s one or the other, and neither will go uncontested.
Dershowitz, Feldman and myself are all in the same page.
Pelosi has caused this mess, it’s up to her to fix it.
However, left unaddressed, it will, I believe, result in the WH (as the injured party) to go after her.
I agree with Dershowitz that it would be unconstitutional for the House to not send an impeachment to the Senate.
The House sends an impeachment to the Senate by voting for the articles of impeachment and recording said votes in the House Journal.
There are no special magical ceremonies required (or even provided for) by the Constitution beyond that.
Again, we are not searching for “magical”, just an orderly transfer of the articles on which the House bases it’s impeachment.
NEWS FLASH–Pelosi has refused to do so.
The articles aren’t something that get “transferred.” The House has SOLE power of impeachment, and it has an official record from which the Senate may learn that that power was exercised.
Making up weird shit about “transmitting” and “transferring” and “submitting” something doesn’t mean that that weird shit actually has any constitutional or legal basis.
Pelosi says she has not sent, conveyed (whatever) the articles to the senate.
McConnell says he hasn’t receive the articles.
It’s safe to say the senate does not have them, negating a trial.
Further it is not the senates duty to get them (they don’t want them).
It is the duty of the House to get them to the senate.
As Dershowitz pointed out, and you agreed with him, it is a 2 part process.
A vote to impeach and senting of articles to the senate.
So far BOTH leaders assert that has not been done.
Therefore only ONE of the two parts of required work from the House has been accomplished, resulting in no impeachment at this point.
The articles aren’t something that get “transferred.” The House has SOLE power of impeachment, and it has an official record from which the Senate may learn that that power was exercised.
Making up weird shit about “transmitting” and “transferring” and “submitting” something doesn’t mean that that weird shit actually has any constitutional or legal basis.
The articles aren’t something that get “transferred.” The House has SOLE power of impeachment, and it has an official record from which the Senate may learn that that power was exercised.
Making up weird shit about “transmitting” and “transferring” and “submitting” something doesn’t mean that that weird shit actually has any constitutional or legal basis.
“If they want, they can bring in the contestants from the last episode of The Gong Show to be prosecutors.”
Memories. Getting stoned and watching Chuckie baby slobber all over himself. You could have blind folded him with dental floss his eyes were so squinty. Thank you for jarring those memories.
Let’s not forget that Adam Schiff is a well known whore for the missile lobby that stands the most to gain by a partisan driven rush to arm Ukrainian Nazi scumf*cks.