Andy Biggs: “My eloquent friend so ably made his case, and I would suggest that it is undercut in some respects when one introduces…”

“My eloquent friend so ably made his case, and I would suggest that it is undercut in some respects when one introduces and discusses impeachment the day after the election in 2016, before President Trump even came to office. That isn't protecting the country, is it? What that is suggesting is that one knows more than the voters of this country. I am also always intrigued when the complaint comes up about the majority in the Senate, when the majority in the Senate is going to determine the rules for the trial in the Senate because the Constitution says that the Senate holds the trial. We just heard that there have to be 51 votes over in the Senate. Oddly enough, I didn't hear complaints when the majority in the House controlled the inquiry. In fact, the term ``coverup'' was used preemptively regarding the Senate, but what I saw in the House was a coverup. We didn't get to introduce all of our witnesses. I sit on the Judiciary Committee. Who did we get as witnesses? We got three or four law professors who came in. That is who got to come in to testify before the Judiciary Committee. We didn't have the witnesses who had factual evidence come in. We requested. We gave lists. We were told we couldn't have them. That is part of the problem. Adding to this hypocrisy, we heard over and over again that we must impeach the President of the United States because it is an imminent danger for him to continue in his office.…”