Editorial from Christianity Today

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html?fbclid=IwAR3MHdhqOT2kewnkfTuQypI4KMeAeLRE_L5eMF20sxZdydEcZZRH68bD-dM

I'm glad to see someone from "inside" the base finally say what needs to be said. I don't agree with everything he says here, but I think the objections he has with Trump are well stated and align with why I think Trump is a garbage human being. I just wish prominent religious leaders and politicians would have the courage to say these things before they retire (this editor is retiring in 8 days). But that fact shows the poor state of the world; that while in a position of influence and power, people are afraid to rock the boat, which ironically, is the time they could actually effect positive change.

Trump Should Be Removed from Office

It’s time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president’s character was revealed for what it was.

MARK GALLIDECEMBER 19, 2019

In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.

The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.

That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.

Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.

This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:

The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.

And this:

Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.

Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.

Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today.

Brilliant takedown of the GOP talking points re: the IG investigation

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/473955-trump-cant-cry-foul-on-fisa-unless-hes-suddenly-a-civil-libertarian

Trump can't cry foul on FISA – unless he's suddenly a civil libertarian

BY MARIK VON RENNENKAMPFF, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/10/19 04:31 PM EST

With the release of a sweeping report on the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, the Department of Justice’s inspector general eviscerated a litany of absurd right-wing conspiracy theories. For one, contrary to the falsehoods relentlessly peddled by the president and his enablers in Congress and the media, there was sufficient evidence to open a counterintelligence probe into Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Given the evidence (and viewed through a slightly different lens), not investigating the Trump campaign would have amounted to criminal dereliction of duty by the FBI.

Moreover, the inspector general’s report concludes that the FBI’s probe into the extensive – and often highly suspicious – links between individuals in Trump’s orbit and murky Russian government cut-outs was not motivated by political bias, nor was anyone “spying” on the Trump campaign.

Perhaps most importantly, the report confirmed that the controversial Steele dossier was not relied upon to open the Bureau’s investigation of Trump’s campaign, demolishing a particularly pernicious fabrication relentlessly parroted in right-wing media echo chambers.

Ditto for the dangerously fact-free notion, disseminated ad nauseam by the likes of former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos (whose loose lips triggered the FBI probe), that Western intelligence agencies actively sought to “sabotage” or entrap Trump.

And just like that, five whopping right-wing conspiracy theories (as well as George Papadopoulos’ budding political career) are busted.

However, the Department of Justice did fault a handful of FBI case agents and a low-ranking department lawyer for errors and omissions in an application to surveil Carter Page, whom the Bureau – rightly – suspected of acting as an agent of Russia. Trump and his conspiracy-peddling cheerleaders have relentlessly pointed to the government’s surveillance of Page as proof that the campaign was spied on. But these assertions are utterly baseless.

For one, the initial application to monitor Page (whose suspicious links to Russia include attempted recruitment by Russian intelligence agents) was not submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court until October 2016. But Page had left the Trump campaign several weeks earlier. This raises an all-important question: How could the government “spy” on a political campaign if the subject of the surveillance was no longer associated with that campaign?

Far more importantly, following revelations that Page’s highly suspicious mid-campaign travels to Russia were under federal investigation, the Trump campaign swiftly distanced itself from Page. Trump’s communications director succinctly summed up Page’s (non-)role on the Trump campaign: “Mr. Page is not an advisor and has made no contribution to the campaign.”

Trump’s lead communicator went on to state that Page “has never been a part of our campaign. Period.” Another campaign spokesman said that Page had “no role” and that the campaign was “not aware of any of [Page’s] activities, past or present.” According to the Trump campaign, Page was a nobody; certainly not anyone who would be in communication with high-level campaign staff. In other words, if the government sought to improperly snoop on the Trump campaign, Page would have made for a worthless surveillance target.

Indeed, if Page was not on the Trump campaign when the first surveillance warrant was approved, and he had “no role,” was “not an advisor” and “made no contribution” to the campaign, how on earth can Trump credibly claim that the government was spying on his campaign via a “nobody” like Page?

He can’t. And another dangerously absurd right-wing conspiracy theory is dismantled.

Ultimately, the Justice Department’s inspector general deserves enormous credit for meticulously documenting mistakes in the application to surveil Page. After all, in a liberal democracy where privacy and freedom from government intrusion are constitutionally and culturally sacrosanct, surveillance of a citizen must meet rigorous requirements. But there is zero evidence that Trump is concerned about Page’s (or anyone else’s) civil liberties. In short, it’s all about Trump.

Moreover, the baseless conspiracy theories and falsehoods peddled by the president and his most tribal supporters are dangerous. Repeating them over and over has consequences. Chief among them is an erosion in confidence in American law enforcement and intelligence agencies, where countless men and women work tirelessly to safeguard democracy and the rule of law from malicious influence by foreign powers.  

Perhaps worst of all, the continued propagation of falsehoods and lies for the sole purposes of deflecting and protecting Trump gives Vladimir Putin the last laugh.

Marik von Rennenkampff served as an analyst with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, as well as an Obama administration appointee at the U.S. Department of Defense. Follow him on Twitter @MvonRen.

IG Report on the Russia Investigation beginnings

So, this was meant to be damning for the Democrats and reveal some sort of Deep State conspiracy within the FBI. It didn't. But the GOP maggots are literally telling the media the OPPOSITE of what this report states, much like they did with the Mueller Report.

Low level procedural problems, but that the investigations were justified. Read for yourself:

https://www.scribd.com/document/439016375/Watchdog#download

NPR Fact Check vs. GOP talking points

A lot of the GOP talking points have now been debunked by both the release of transcripts from the closed door hearings, as well as the movement into the public hearings last week. But in case you need some facts for your drunken uncle at the upcoming Thanksgiving feast, here you go:

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/03/775152421/fact-check-is-the-trump-impeachment-process-different-from-nixon-and-clinton

Dangerous Cult Leaders: How many traits listed here does Trump check off?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/spycatcher/201208/dangerous-cult-leaders

by Joe Navarro on Psychology Today:

One of the questions that I am often asked by students of criminology and psychology is, how do you know when a cult leader is “evil” or “bad”? These of course are vague descriptors to some extent, but I also get the question, “When is a cult leader pathological or a danger to others?” This is a valid question in view of the historical record of suffering and hurt caused by various cult leaders around the world.

From my studies of cults and cult leaders during my time in the FBI, I learned early on that there are some things to look for that, at a minimum, say "caution, this individual is dangerous, and in all likelihood will cause harm to others."

Having studied at length the life, teachings, and behaviors of Jim Jones (Jonestown Guyana), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Stewart Traill (The Church of Bible Understanding), Charles Manson, Shoko Asahara (Aum Shinrikyo), Joseph Di Mambro (The Order of the Solar Temple a.k.a. Ordre du Temple Solaire), Marshall Heff Applewhit (Heaven’s Gate), Bhagwan Rajneesh (Rajneesh Movement), and Warren Jeffs (polygamist leader), I can say that what stands out about these individuals is that they were or are all pathologically narcissistic. They all have or had an over-abundant belief that they were special, that they and they alone had the answers to problems, and that they had to be revered. They demanded perfect loyalty from followers, they overvalued themselves and devalued those around them, they were intolerant of criticism, and above all they did not like being questioned or challenged. And yet, in spite of these less than charming traits, they had no trouble attracting those who were willing to overlook these features.

These personality traits stand out as the first warning to those who would associate with them, but there are many others. Here is a collection of traits of cult leaders that give us hints as to their psychopathology. This list is not all-inclusive nor is it the final word on the subject; it is merely my personal collection based on studies and interviews that I conducted in my previous career.

If you know of a cult leader who has many of these traits there is a high probability that they are hurting those around them emotionally, psychologically, physically, spiritually, or financially. And of course this does not take into account the hurt that their loved ones will also experience.

Here are the typical traits of the pathological cult leader (from Dangerous Personalities) that you should watch for: 

1. He has a grandiose idea of who he is and what he can achieve.
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, or brilliance.
3. Demands blind, unquestioned obedience.
4. Requires excessive admiration from followers and outsiders.
5. Has a sense of entitlement—expecting to be treated as special at all times.
6. Is exploitative of others by asking for their money or that of relatives, putting others at financial risk.
7. Is arrogant and haughty in his behavior or attitude.
8. Has an exaggerated sense of power (entitlement) that allows him to bend rules and break laws.
9. Takes sexual advantage of members of his sect or cult.
10. Sex is a requirement with adults and sub adults as part of a ritual or rite.
11. Is hypersensitive to how he is seen or perceived by others. 
12. Publicly devalues others as being inferior, incapable, or not worthy.
13. Makes members confess their sins or faults, publicly subjecting them to ridicule or humiliation while revealing exploitable weaknesses of the penitent.
14. Has ignored the needs of others, including: biological, physical, emotional, and financial needs.
15. Is frequently boastful of accomplishments.
16. Needs to be the center of attention and does things to distract others to ensure that he or she is being noticed, e.g., by arriving late, using exotic clothing, overdramatic speech, or by making theatrical entrances.
17. Has insisted on always having the best of anything (house, car, jewelry, clothes) even when others are relegated to lesser facilities, amenities, or clothing.
18. Doesn’t seem to listen well to needs of others; communication is usually one-way, in the form of dictates.
19. Haughtiness, grandiosity, and the need to be controlling is part of his personality.
20. Behaves as though people are objects to be used, manipulated or exploited for personal gain.
21. When criticized he tends to lash out not just with anger but with rage.
22. Anyone who criticizes or questions him is called an “enemy.”
23. Refers to non-members or non-believers as “the enemy.”
24. Acts imperious at times, not wishing to know what others think or desire.
25. Believes himself to be omnipotent.
26. Has “magical” answers or solutions to problems.
27. Is superficially charming.
28. Habitually puts down others as inferior; only he is superior.
29. Has a certain coldness or aloofness about him that makes others worry about who this person really is and or whether they really know him.
30. Is deeply offended when there are perceived signs of boredom, being ignored or of being slighted.
31. Treats others with contempt and arrogance.
32. Is constantly assessing people to determine those who are a threat or those who revere him.
33. The word “I” dominates his conversations. He is oblivious to how often he references himself.
34. Hates to be embarrassed or fail publicly; when he does he acts out with rage.
35. Doesn’t seem to feel guilty for anything he has done wrong nor does he apologize for his actions.
36. Believes he possesses the answers and solutions to world problems.
37. Believes himself to be a deity or a chosen representative of a deity.
38. "Rigid," "unbending," or "insensitive" describes how this person thinks.
39. Tries to control others in what they do, read, view, or think.
40. Has isolated members of his sect from contact with family or the outside world.
41. Monitors and/or restricts contact with family or outsiders.
42. Works the least but demands the most.
43. Has stated that he is “destined for greatness” or that he will be “martyred.”
44. Seems to be highly dependent on tribute and adoration and will often fish for compliments.
45. Uses enforcers or sycophants to ensure compliance from members or believers.
46. Sees self as “unstoppable” and perhaps has even said so.
47. Conceals background or family, which would disclose how plain or ordinary he is.
48. Doesn’t think there is anything wrong with himself and in fact sees himself as perfection or “blessed.”
49. Has taken away followers' freedom to leave, to travel, to pursue life and liberty.
50. Has isolated the group physically (moved to a remote area) so as to not be observed.

When the question is asked, “When do we know when a cult leader is bad, or evil, or toxic?” this is the list that I use to survey the cult leader for dangerous traits. Of course the only way to know anything for sure is to observe and validate, but these characteristics can go a long way to help with that. And as I have said, there are other things to look for and there may be other lists, but this is the one that I found most useful from studying these groups and talking to former members of cults.

When a cult or organizational leader has a preponderance of these traits then we can anticipate that at some point those who associate with him will likely suffer physically, emotionally, psychologically, or financially. If these traits sound familiar to leaders, groups, sects, or organizations known to you, then expect those who associate with them to live in despair and to suffer, even if they don’t know yet that they will.

Trump's Conflicts of Interest

Trump and his family often claim that they are losing money due to his taking office. A basic understanding of accounting (I have a BS in Accounting, BTW) should tell you that's not how income works. Just because you might take a loss (and that is questionable in this case until we see some tax returns), doesn't mean you haven't made income. It's the income piece that is the conflict of interest when you hold public office.

While his shitty offspring try to claim victimhood and lie about how hard they work and how many sacrifices they've made, I'll just put this here:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/trump-conflicts-of-interest-tracking/

Impeachment Inquiry transcripts

McKinley transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/433408331/Read-McKinley-deposition-transcript#download

Yovanovich trascript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/433409580/Read-Yovanovitch-deposition-transcript#download

UPDATE Volker transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/433586767/Read-Kurt-Volker-transcript#download

UPDATE Sondland transcript (who, by the way, revised his testimony yesterday to say that there was, in fact, a clear quid pro quo. Oops!):

https://www.scribd.com/document/433585474/Read-Gordon-Sondland-deposition-transcript#download

UPDATE Taylor transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/433755121/Bill-Taylor

UPDATE Kent transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/433926031/Testimony-George-Kent#download

UPDATE Hill transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/434054739/Fiona-Hill-Transcript#download

UPDATE Vindman transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/434055504/Vindman-Transcript#download

UPDATE Cooper transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/434487676/Cooper-Testimony#download

UPDATE Anderson transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/434496207/AndersonTestimony#download

UPDATE Croft transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/434494477/Croft-Testimony#download

UPDATE Williams transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/435317846/Jennifer-Williams-closed-door-impeachment-inquiry-testimony#download

UPDATE Morrison transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/435319380/Tim-Morrison-close-door-impeachment-hearing-testimony#download

UPDATE Holmes transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/435717789/Holmes-Final-Version-Redacted#download

UPDATE Hale transcript:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6552628/CPRT-116-IG00-D018-U1.pdf

How AR Members of Congress respond to my letters (Updated)

Below is the first message I sent my Representative, French Hill, and Senators, John Boozman and Tom Cotton.

"What's it going to take for you to realize it is finally time to hold the President accountable? His associates are all tied to corruption, many have already been indicted. Many others are or will be under serious investigation. Even if his actions never quite fall under "illegal", surely you must be able to see they are devoid of morals. Your support means nothing to him, and he will abandon you as soon as it suits his purpose. His most recent mistake involving Turkey and Syria is your chance to save face in the GOP. Support the impeachment inquiry now. And when you finally see the evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", you must vote to impeach, convict and remove. Let this failed experiment end, learn from it, and let justice return."

I will now post the responses (and will update as they come in).

From AR Representative French Hill:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Donald Trump. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

I appreciate hearing the concerns of Arkansans and Americans throughout the country. I have always advocated for a civil tone and mutual understanding when it comes to our political disagreements, and I will continue to advocate for civil discourse, vigorous debate, the democratic process, and respect for all.

However, impeachment has consumed Congressional Democrats since the president's first day in office. The Mueller report did not deliver the impeachment verdict they were hoping for, so now they are trying again with an anonymous whistleblower complaint based off zero firsthand information.Speaker Pelosi's decision to move forward with an impeachment inquiry before all of the facts surfaced proves once again that Congressional Democrats care more about undermining the president than finding the truth. Speaker Pelosi caved to the radical wing of her party for what is essentially a partisan political process that goes against both precedent and protocol. The full House voted on articles of impeachment three times since President Trump took office, and each vote has failed by a bipartisan margin with dozens of Democrats voting against impeachment. If this inquiry was more than a political game, then Speaker Pelosi would have brought new articles of impeachment to the floor for a vote already.

Rather than caving to the radical elements in her ranks, Speaker Pelosi should focus on issues important to the American people like securing our southwest border and passing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). I remain committed and focused on my work to address the important issues facing the people living in the second congressional district of Arkansas and the rest of our country.

My response to Mr. Hill's response:

I'm sorry, but this is a bogus and partisan response. Donald Trump has given the American people enough evidence in plain sight to begin an impeachment inquiry. And an inquiry is exactly that; an inquiry to gather facts. To suggest that Pelosi should have all the facts prior to an investigation is ridiculous. Furthermore, Mueller stated unequivocally that he would indict Trump over obstruction were he not a sitting President, so I'd hardly say that endeavor was useless. A Federal judge has already opened the door to end that idea, which to date has only been enacted due to DOJ memos; it is not law, and no individual is above the law. As for what Congress "should" be doing, you can direct that question to your cohorts in the Senate, led by Mitch McConnell. There are currently almost 300 bills waiting on them. You know exactly how many bills have been passed in the House that the Senate has refused to take up. You are being disingenuous, and your support of Trump (party over country) is noted.

From AR Senator John Boozman:

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts on the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. It is good to hear from you.

On September 24, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the U.S. House of Representatives would begin a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. The Speaker's announcement followed publicly released transcripts of President Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his comments regarding former Vice President Joe Biden and his so, Hunter Biden, regarding the Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings. Speaker Pelosi has directed six House Committees to continue investigations into the Trump Administration and report their findings to the House Judiciary Committee.

As you may know, the process of impeachment must begin with the U.S. House of Representatives passing, by a simple majority, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached" and next, the U.S. Senate tries the accused. I appreciate you reaching out to share your thoughts with me on Speaker Pelosi's decision to begin a formal impeachment inquiry.  Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should articles of impeachment proceed to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

Again, thank you for contacting me to share your views. If you would like to reply to this email, please click here .

At this time, I have no response to Mr. Boozman; his response was carefully worded, and while he may or may not support the President, he is at least attempting to remain impartial and reasonable.

UPDATE as of 11/4/19. Still no response from Tom Cotton's office (though I can imagine what it would be), and no further response from French Hill's office, though they did send out a newsletter that basically parroted the GOP RWNJ "defense" of attacking the process. This was, ironically, the day before Pelosi announced the vote on impeachment inquiry, which has now happened. Furthermore, today, they began releasing the transcripts of the testimonies, which will be my next blog post.

LOL, as the GOP talking points continue to get destroyed. Really, the only option they have now (other than dropping Trump like a hot turd), is to claim that, yes, he did all those things, but there's nothing wrong with that (some are already trying this defense out). It seems pretty clear to me that there is something wrong with his behavior, but we'll see what the rest of the American people have to say.

At this point, it may still be likely that he can get re-elected, but that the Republicans may also lose their majority in Senate as well. If that happens, an interesting question is, "Is there a constitutional equivalent to double jeopardy, or would a newly elected House and Senate be able to do another vote on impeachment, conviction and removal?" If this Senate votes against conviction and removal, and Trump gets re-elected, even with a Democratic-led House and Senate, it seems almost a given that the Trump admin would by then have perpetrated yet another issue over which there could be articles of impeachment.

UPDATE: Finally got a response from Tom Cotton's office, though from a different email. Here it is (and then my response back):

Thank you for contacting me about the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against President Trump.

On July 25, 2019, President Trump held a phone conversation with Ukraine’s newly-elected President Volodymyr Zelensky. After the call, someone within the intelligence community filed a whistleblower complaint against the president. According to news reports, the whistleblower coordinated with House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff before filing the complaint. After the whistleblower complaint came to light, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats raced to open a “formal” impeachment inquiry against the president.

Despite an unprecedented act of transparency by President Trump in releasing the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian leader, the Democratic Party has nevertheless plunged headlong into a partisan impeachment process, the conclusion of which seems highly predetermined. They could consider dedicating a fraction of this legislative energy to improving the lives of hardworking Americans. Meanwhile the Democrats continue to ignore the Biden family’s questionable (at best) international business dealings. I believe the American people deserve to know the details of this issue as well.

I’m honored to serve as your senator. You, your family, and our state will remain on my mind and close to my heart in my work. Always feel free to call my office at (202) 224-2353 or visit www.cotton.senate.gov. Be sure to drop by my office and say hello if you ever visit our nation’s capital.

Sincerely,

Tom Cotton
United States Senator

Mr. Cotton,

I know you probably won't read this. Maybe a staffer will, or maybe it'll just generate an auto-response; I don't know. Your response is what is partisan, not what the Democrats are doing. Your response is full of weak defenses, based on things that simply aren't true. The whistleblower went through all the proper channels, was deemed by the IG that is represented a credible issue, and it is LAW that a report of this nature be turned over to Congress within 7 days. You decry Pelosi as "rushing", but she, and most centrist Democrats were reluctant to proceed with an impeachment inquiry until they had enough evidence. And there is no need to put the word "formal" in quotes. The House has sole power to begin impeachment proceedings as they see fit, and let me remind you that it was Republicans that changed the rules about the minority party's ability to call witnesses during the Benghazi investigations.

The so called "transcript" of the call with the Ukrainian president is not a transcript. It says so on the document. It is a memo, recorded from memory after the fact, not in real time, and an incomplete memo at that. The call is listed as lasting 30 minutes, and the content released accounts for maybe five minutes worth. However, what is in that memo is enough evidence to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. Nevermind what has come out of the President's mouth on national TV and his Twitter account. He is doing this to himself, as are those that support and help cover up his actions.

You try to make it seem as if the House isn't doing anything else, but the impeachment inquiry is only six committees of the House. Last I saw, they had passed over 300 bills that your buddy, Mitch McConnell refuses to even consider. So go talk to your GOP cohorts in the Senate about a "do-nothing" Congress.

As for Biden. Go ahead and investigate. You've already had almost three years to do so, when you controlled the WH and both chambers of Congress, but somehow this has only come up once it became apparent that Biden was a threat. If there's corruption there, then I'm sure there's evidence and not just a song and dance. And while you're at it, I hope you are looking as closely at the Trump family's personal business entanglements since you seem to be so concerned about the abuse of power. But you won't, because you actually don't care about that at all.

And since we're talking about transparency, how many of your constituents know how much the Koch brothers gave your campaign in 2014 (8.1 million)? How much dark money (and from whom) is going to your current campaign? You may be relatively unchallenged here in Arkansas, but you'd better be careful to which horse you attach your cart. Because it's fairly likely that many of them won't be around after 2020. Perhaps you should consider how many indictments have already come from these "sham" investigations, how many sentences are or will be carried out, and how many more are coming.

UPDATE: Response from US Rep. French Hill:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Donald Trump. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond. For more than six weeks, Democrat leaders ran a secretive, partisan impeachment inquiry, hidden away from the majority of members of Congress, that is unprecedented and unfair to central Arkansans. Despite claiming that no House vote is needed, recently Speaker Pelosi attempted to save face by passing a resolution that formalizes her ongoing, one-sided impeachment process that lacks any semblance of due process. Democrat leadership blatantly deviated from historical precedent by altering the language used to establish impeachment proceedings under both President Nixon in 1974 and President Clinton in 1998. During those impeachment proceedings, the process was collaborative, and the minority had equal participation. Not surprisingly, every single Republican and two Democrats voted against Speaker Pelosi's partisan impeachment resolution. Last week, House Democrats began the public impeachment inquiry hearings. Just because these are public, does not mean they are fair. Chairman Schiff has turned the Intelligence Committee into the Impeachment Committee where he has total control. Democrats have continued to deny key witnesses from testifying nor released transcripts from the most recent secret depositions. The White House's counsel is also not allowed to participate. The president has significant authority to conduct foreign policy, and from what the witnesses have testified the last two weeks, I believe these hearings belong in the House Foreign Affairs Committee's oversight function. While Democrat leaders have obsessed over undoing the results of the 2016 election, they have completely lost sight of their responsibility to address important issues facing the American people. Instead of doubling-down on a partisan impeachment inquiry, they should work with Republicans to pass on-time government funding, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) on trade. I remain committed and focused on my work to address the important issues facing the people living in central Arkansas and the rest of our country.

Sincerely, French Hill Member of Congress And my response back: Dear Mr. Hill, I don't know if you or one of your staffers (or no one) will read this, but I'm going to respond anyway. I'll take it point by point. You say Democrats ran a secret and partisan impeachment inquiry. While the initial testimonies were closed-door, it is not common practice that the entire House be present. Six committees were, which included around 48 of your Republicans colleagues. They were granted equal time for questioning. It is only perceived as partisan because the Republicans are circling the wagons instead of trying to think about what's best for the country. The Founders knew impeachment was always going to become political. The Constitution requires no vote for the House to conduct impeachment proceedings, and the only reason Pelosi eventually took one was to take away one of your asinine talking points. There is no due process, as an impeachment inquiry is not a criminal proceeding. I'd hardly call what happened with Nixon and Clinton "collaborative processes". The only real difference is that the House had to do the inquiry instead of an independent counsel due to Barr's obstruction. What you are railing against was simply the discovery process; we haven't even gotten to the articles of impeachment or the Senate trial yet. There was plenty from those two historical examples that happened behind closed doors. Now, on to the public hearings. Majority Party controls the process, yes. Elections have consequences. Republicans have only been denied witnesses that are irrelevant to the inquiry into the President. And you can thank your own party for limiting the control the Minority has, when that change was made during the Benghazi hearings. Meanwhile, the WH and State Dept have refused to comply with subpoenas for Mulvaney and Bolton. Testimony has also revealed that it would be appropriate to also subpoena Giulianni, Pompeo and Pence, as well as the President himself. They have released all but two of the closed-door transcripts, which nullifies that talking point. And the question isn't whether the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy, but how and for what purpose. That is the whole point of this. He abused Presidential power for himself. While impeachment has obviously consumed the cultural and media narrative, it is not all of the work that is being done in the House, as you full well know. There are at least 300 bills passed in the House that your cohort McConnell in the Senate refuses to take up. And perhaps, most tellingly, is that throughout all of this, I'm not hearing, seeing or reading you or any other politician refuting the facts of the case. You can only attack the process and the characters of the witnesses and your colleagues across the aisle. The facts show that the President did exactly what he is being accused of, and he involved many other people in doing so. The question you have to answer doesn't have anything to do with how "mean" or "unfair" the Democrats are being; it is simply this: Is what the President did ok with you? Is the evidence of how he speaks and acts reflective of the values you claim to hold? Is America better off now, or has Russia succeeded in destabilizing both the US and Europe by fostering domestic, internal divisions? I can't say what will happen with the impeachment or the next election. What I can say is that this process is the right thing to do. I am confident that history will not look kindly on this administration or those that are complicit or cover for them. That's assuming those that have chosen this side don't get indicted themselves.