On the last day of the House impeachment inquiry, Professor Jonathan Turley stated succinctly the Democrats, in a rush to judgment, had cobbled together a case that just didn’t hold up.
While Mr. Turley’s assessment went to the merit of the case Mr. Schiff and company had prepared—he did not address the more pressing issue—Why?
Why was there such a rush to judgment?
Adam Schiff had based his case for impeaching Donald Trump largely on a compliant filed with the Inspector General (IG) of the Intelligence Community (IC). The complaint from an anonymous source had centered on a phone conversation placed by President Trump to Ukrainian President Volodymry Zelenskyy—where Mr. Trump had asked for a favor.
The favor has been misconstrued by Mr. Schiff and the liberal media to be related to digging up dirt on Presidential candidate Joe Biden and his part in getting a Ukrainian State Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, fired in 2016.
In reality, the favor—as made clear in the minutes of the July 25th phone conversation, was in regard to cooperation between Mr. Zelenskyy’s government and U.S. Attorney General William Barr, relating to Mr. Barr’s ongoing Russian interference investigation.
When the whistleblower’s complaint is scrutinized, there is no definitive evidence associated with the complaint. The whistleblower had merely assembled various facts/events to make their case. In effect, they had cherry picked the facts.
As Professor Turley commented, the case was incredibly weak—and in his opinion didn’t meet what he considered the standard for impeachment.
But that didn’t stop Mr. Schiff from proceeding with his impeachment inquiry and articles of impeachment.
We have to wonder why. (See article: Impeachment—One Man’s Ambition)
The biggest driver for the abuse of power charge was the failure of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller to find evidence of collusion between candidate Trump’s campaign and the Russians in the 2016 Presidential election.
It must be remembered, Mr. Schiff had maintained all along he had the goods on the President in regard to collusion. In fact, that was why Mr. Schiff had opened the House investigation into collusion after the GOP controlled Congress had spent nearly two years on the very same issue.
With the Special Counsel coming up empty—Mr. Schiff and Democrats were running out of time.
More compelling, with the 2020 elections looming, the whistleblower complaint potentially represented the last hurrah the Democrats had for removing Donald Trump from office.
It is worth pointing out: the House over the past couple of decades has been the dominion of the GOP.
In 2008, Democrats took control of both houses of Congress due to a nationwide backlash centered on President Bush’s Iraq War.
That lasted only one election-cycle before the GOP retook the House.
In 2018, in a mid-term election, the undercurrent that drove the Democrats back into power in the House was due to the energy surrounding the false narrative of a “stolen election” in 2016.
That, along with a reluctance by the GOP to make healthcare a major platform, gave Democrats control of the House.
But as we have seen in recent history—the Democrats control of the House likely will be temporary.
Perhaps more important, if Democrats by some chance, retain the House and continue to hound President Trump with impeachment—that will have meant Donald Trump won a second term
A Trump 2020 victory will not be in dispute.
There will be no conspiracy surrounding Russian interference—Donald Trump will have won legitimately.
The same emotion and passion of the “stolen election” won’t be there a second time.
How will Democrats justify removing a legitimately elected President from office?
This was the dilemma facing Adam Schiff—a 2020 victory by Donald Trump puts an end to impeachment.
If he and Democrats ever hoped to push through impeachment it had to be here and now.
But that meant Mr. Schiff would have to hang his hopes and aspirations on an incredibly weak case. It meant Adam Schiff had to make a rush to judgment call—and that’s exactly what he did.