The House Impeachment 'Trial Memorandum' Is Shallow and Silly and Exactly What You Would Expect From Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler

Clerk of the House Cheryl Johnson, left, and House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving pass through Statuary Hall at the Capitol to deliver the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2020. Following are impeachment managers, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., left, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and other managers Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)


The Democrat-mismanaged House of Representatives has delivered their ‘trial memorandum’ for the impeachment of President Trump. It is just about as bizarre and half-assed as you would imagine any group project involving Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler to be. [link to trial memorandum pdf]

These are the main highlights. The memorandum claims, without evidence, that President Trump ordered an investigation into the activities of Hunter Biden to aid his election. This is nonsense on its face. Hunter Biden’s shenanigans were known, and are known, to the American public. Joe Biden is NOT the Democrat candidate for president, actually President Trump is more guilty, had he done what was alleged without a shred of direct evidence, of aiding Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

In framing this allegation, the House claims, again without evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary, that Ukraine did not meddle in the 2016 election. Major American media reported on that story in real time. And there is no mention in the House memo of this historic incident:

The memo falsely claims that the US withheld security assistance from Ukraine to help President Trump and [gasp] would not give Ukraine President Zelensky a White House meeting.

The memo claims that Trump endangered US national interests. This particularly obscene as it is raised by members of a party that spent its last eight years in power trying to permanently curtail US power and limit its influence.

And we have “obstruction of Congress.” Apparently,  a Republican president is required to go along with whatever sick little fantasy that Adam Schiff is entertaining on a particular day. If he doesn’t actively collaborate in his own destruction, then that is impeachable. What absolute bullsh**. Impeachment, as we’ve been reminded over and over and over, is a political act. The President is under no moral, legal, or ethical obligation to cooperate. As this process has shown, the House has no need of witnesses, evidence, or even an offense once they have decided to impeach. The House cites some not-on-point Supreme Court cases which really aren’t all that relevant as this is a political issue that does not and cannot involve courts. The House’s power to compel delivery of documents and testimony is directly related to the political strength of the case. If no one takes their case seriously, the President is under no pressure to comply.

The spittle-flecked document ends with a great selling point:

If the Senate permits President Trump to remain in office, he and future leaders would be emboldened to welcome, and even enlist, foreign interference in elections for years to come. When the American people’s faith in their electoral process is shaken and its results called into question, the essence of democratic self-government is called into doubt.

Failure to remove President Trump would signal that a President’s personal interests may take precedence over those of the Nation, alarming our allies and emboldening our adversaries. Our leadership depends on the power of our example and the consistency of our purpose,” but because of President Trump’s actions, “[b]oth have now been opened to question.”

Without going back through the entire catalog of stupidity the Democrats have assembled, this is the basic point. First, there is no evidence that the central charge is true. Second, there is no evidence of any violation of law were it true, in fact, giving Biden’s son a pass because his Daddy has fantasies of being president would be violation of the President’s oath of office. Third, this action has nothing at all to do with anything other than a feeble and transparent effort to remove a legally elected president and seems more calculated to encourage the Senate to dismiss the case out of hand in order to keep the issue alive than it does as a basis for a trial that responsible adults would participate in.


Managing Editor at RedState
Former infantry officer, CGSC grad and Army Operations Center alumnus.
RedState member since 2004.
polite emails to [email protected] Jerk emails will be blocked.
Follow me on Twitter
Read more by streiff