As the Senate began impeachment proceedings today, RNLA Co-Chair Harmeet Dhillon described how House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff's actions as de facto prosecutor in the House would result in sanctions and likely disbarment if engaged in by a prosecutor in court:

As House Democrats irresponsibly hurdle toward impeachment tomorrow, the Senate led by Mitch McConnell is going to do it's duty.  In remarks today, Senator McConnell explained what the House has done and why this impeachment is problematic both now and for the future.  

It appears that the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history is about to wind down after just 12 weeks and that its slapdash work product will be dumped on the Senate.

‘I’ll have much more to say to our colleagues and to the American people if and when the House does move ahead. But as we speak today, House Democrats still have the opportunity to do the right thing for the country and avoid setting this toxic new precedent.

‘The House can still turn back from the cliff and not deploy this constitutional remedy of last resort to deliver a pre-determined partisan outcome.

A lot people have admitted mistakes, promised reforms or are acting further on the incredible IG report of Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz.  This weekend former FBI Director James Comey even admitted he was wrong on the basis of the report.  But one person has not budged: the leader of the impeachment efforts for Democrats, House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Adam Schiff.  And besides the FBI and Obama Department of Justice, if there is one person who should be admitting he was wrong, it is Rep. Schiff.

It should be noted that much of this was available to Rep. Schiff, who denied it when Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Devin Nunes came out with a report confirming that the FISA warrants were wrong and based on information known to be false.

Schiff tells Chris Wallace he was unaware of errors and omissions in FBI use of FISA process. Bunk. The much-derided Nunes memo, which Schiff strongly disputed at the time, called attention to these very abuses. Most media, of course, echoed the Schiff version, scoffed at Nunes.

— Brit Hume (@brithume) December 15, 2019

In our continued focus on Democrats who oppose impeachment, today we focus on famous lawyer and law professor Alan Dershowitz, who makes a strong case against impeachment, again.  We say again because he also wrote a book about the first quasi-impeachment effort which became the Mueller report.  Dershowitz details how Maxine Waters' interpretation of Congress' impeachment power is wrong and dangerous.

There are those like Congresswoman Maxine Waters who argue that Congress can impeach on any ground a majority wishes. “There is no law,” she has asserted, because then power to impeach is vested solely in the House and there is no judicial review of its actions. Even if that were true — and it is debatable —Waters’ lawless and reductionistic view confuses what Congress can get away with, as distinguished from what the Constitution obliges its members to do: namely to apply the criteria set out in the Constitution.

The voters in November 2020 can and should be the judge of President Trump.   In light of the recent struggles of their party’s candidates, it seems House Democrats fear that potential judgment and want to insert their own.  Professor Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and Trump opponent, breaks down how that judgment may damage all future Presidents in his written testimony today:

To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.

As Rep Adam Schiff finishes his impeachment inquiry report there seems to be a feeling among even a few Democrats and academicians that there is nothing there for impeachment.  Keep in mind, this is without Republicans or the President even able to present their side. 

Democrat Rep. Jefferson Van Drew of New Jersey stated:

No president has ever been removed from office, Van Drew, 66, points out. And to have a "small, elite group" of lawmakers do so when an election is less than a year away seems to him to be not only unfathomable but un-American.

 “To some folks, that’s reminiscent of what was done to kings and queens many years ago," he said. "Everything our country doesn’t stand for."

President Obama appointee Beryl A. Howell cleared the way for House Democrats to further leak and try to politically damage the President when she authorized the release of grand jury materials from the Mueller investigation. This violates one of the fundamental principles of grand juries: that their proceedings must be kept secret.  As Margot Cleveland wrote in the Federalist:

Access to the grand jury materials won’t transform the House’s proceedings into a “full and fair impeachment inquiry”—it will just give the Democrats more information to selectively leak to the press. . . .

[T]here’s no need to look beyond the closed doors of the committees to conclude that the Democrats aren’t requesting the grand jury materials to avoid an injustice—but to avoid a reelection.

Yesterday, the Committee on House Administration marked up the SHIELD Act (H.R. 4617, Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy Act).  The SHIELD Act contains the provisions of the Honest Ads Act, plus additional dangerous provisions.

If passed, it would likely have very little effect on foreign efforts to influence or interfere with U.S. elections.  Instead, it would regulate Americans seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights, with the effect of restricting political speech.

The RNLA sent a letter to the House opposing the SHIELD Act:

As Nancy Pelosi pushes House Democrats toward impeachment, we thought we would gather some reactions and responses from all sides of the spectrum that you may have missed.  But first off, we have to commend the President who has called for the release of the transcripts of his conversation with Ukraine President Zelensky and Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans who “hotlined” and voted unanimously to pass a resolution to provide the whistleblower complaint to Congress. 

Trump is releasing the transcript.

McConnell moving the complaint to Senate intel.

You want transparency & the facts? You got it.

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) September 24, 2019

While we are awaiting some big decisions by the Supreme Court and Democrats begin their Presidential debates, the House begins debate tomorrow on a very important issue: making our elections more secure.  While Democrats continue in their quest to Federalize elections, Republicans continue in their efforts to help states and localities secure their elections.  As a result RNLA will release the following letter tomorrow to Speaker Pelosi and Republican House leader McCarthy: