The Democrats bad-faith impeachment efforts began during the 2016 campaign as they looked for excuses
Green gets the honesty award for his party.
“Well, the genesis of impeachment, to be very candid with you, was when the president was running for office,” Green responded.
Before the Ukraine call was even a controversy, Green publicly declared, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get reelected.”
The Mueller report was supposed to be the end of Trump. Instead, it cleared him and the campaign of conspiring with Russia.
After this, Democrats wanted the House to go after Trump for obstruction of justice. They considered Stormy Daniels, emoluments, and other matters.
“Democrats were gung-ho about impeachment from day one. After Mueller didn’t work out, they had to engage in new narrative building,” Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee said in an interview for this book.
And finally, the whistleblower complaint about a call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky offered salvation to the Impeach 45 movement.
“There was no smoke and no fire. Once we found [Adam] Schiff’s team was talking to the whistleblower, we knew it was a farce. It didn’t matter,” Nunes added. “This was an investigation in search of a narrative. It was a fishing expedition unparalleled in American history. The closest thing might be the McCarthy era. This one was for the purpose of a coup.”
When the Q&A portion of the first Senate trial began, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., submitted a question that shed much light on the matter. Chief Justice John Roberts, after staring at it for eleven seconds, said “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.”
Paul later tweeted, “My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot to impeach the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?”
In follow-up tweets, Paul wrote, “My exact question was: Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer [Sean] Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together?… And are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings?”
Paul was back to rephrase the question; this time, Chief Justice Roberts read it out loud.
“Recent reporting described two [National Security Council] staff holdovers from the Obama administration attending an all-hands meeting of NSC staff held about two weeks into the Trump administration and talking loudly enough to be overheard saying, ‘We need to do everything we can to take out the president.’ On July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee hired one of those individuals, Sean Misko. The report further describes relationships between Misko, Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindman, and the individual alleged as the whistleblower. Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky, and what role has he played throughout your committee’s investigation?”
Schiff responded with his usual righteous indignation, aghast that someone would challenge his absolute moral authority on the need for secrecy.
The last impeachment effort was similarly flawed. It was a rush to judgment before the facts were gathered about the Capitol riot and as the evidence emerged it was clear that Democrats, as well as the Republicans who went along with them, were wrong about the responsibility for the riots.