James Comey

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

We will not stop. Whether or not that leads to another impeachment activity, I don’t know. But I know we must continue the work that our constituents elected us to congress to do.”

[soonernvolved]

trendingpolitics.com/maxine-waters-slips-up-dishes-on-dems-real-plan-for-trump/?utm_source=economics

California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters had quite the slip of the tongue over the weekend when she revealed that Democrats were never going to stop trying to impeach President Donald Trump from office.

During an interview on Sunday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Weekends,” Waters spoke about the impeachment trial beginning in the Senate this week.

But things took a turn when Waters said even if Trump is acquitted by the Senate, House Democrats would not stop investigating him.

“What about if the president is ultimately acquitted by the Senate? Do you see the house potentially taking up other articles of impeachment against him? You are the chair of the Financial Services Committee,” Waters began.

“There has been plenty of talk of emoluments clause violations. Might those potentially be stronger than what we’ve seen here, could that be taken up?” she continued.

She wasn’t done there.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/senate-trial-schedule-released-by-mcconnell-shows-hes-not-playing-games

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has announced on Monday that he is giving House Democrats’ impeachment managers and President Donald Trump’s legal defense team 24 hours each to make their opening arguments stretched over a two day period starting this Wednesday.

“The President and the House of Representatives shall have until 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2020, to file any motions permitted under the rules of impeachment with the exception of motions to subpoena witnesses or documents or any other evidentiary motions,” McConnell’s resolution stated. “Responses to any such motions shall be filed no later than 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2020. All materials filed pursuant to this paragraph shall be filed with the Secretary and be printed and made available to all parties.”

“Arguments on such motions shall begin at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2020, and each side may determine the number of persons to make its presentation, following which the Senate shall deliberate, if so ordered under the impeachment rules, and vote on any such motions,” the resolution added.


“Following the disposition of such motions, or if no motions are made, then the House of Representatives shall make its presentation in support of the articles of impeachment for a period of time not to exceed 24 hours, over up to 2 session days,” the resolution continued. “Following the House of Representatives’ presentation, the President shall make his presentation for a period not to exceed 24 hours, over up to 2 session days. Each side may determine the number of persons to make its presentation.”

“Upon the conclusion of the President’s presentation, Senators may question the parties for a period of time not to exceed 16 hours,” the resolution continued. “Upon the conclusion of questioning by the Senate, there shall be 4 hours of argument by the parties, equally divided, followed by deliberation by the Senate, if so ordered under the impeachment rules, on the question of whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. The Senate, without any intervening action, motion, or amendment, shall then decide by the yeas and nays whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents.”

“Following the disposition of that question, other motions provided under the impeachment rules shall be in order,” the resolution concluded. “If the Senate agrees to allow either the House of Representatives or the President to subpoena witnesses, the witnesses shall first be deposed and the Senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify, pursuant to the impeachment rules. No testimony shall be admissible in the Senate unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose such witnesses.”

The Senate will then vote on whether to convict or acquit the president on each article of impeachment at the end of the deliberations by the Senate.


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer decried McConnell’s schedule, claiming without evidence that McConnell was trying to make it “much more difficult to get witnesses and documents” involved in the trial.

Schumer is making his claims in bad faith as he has previously dismissed the notion that witnesses should be involved in a Senate impeachment trial because they are supposed to be interviewed by the House, which did not call all of the witnesses in Trump’s case.

In 1999, during the impeachment of Democrat President Bill Clinton, a reporter asked Schumer, “You said that one of the reasons they didn’t call witnesses in the House was to accommodate Democrats. How do you respond to that?”

“Let me say this idea that they didn’t have to call witnesses in the House and they should call them in the Senate doesn’t make sense,” Schumer responded. “You call witnesses before a grand jury and you call witnesses before a trial. So, there were some on my side, I was not among them, but some on my side who argued strongly that they outta call witnesses and they resisted it every step of the way.”


“There has not been a good explanation why 60,000 pages of testimony was good enough for the House but isn’t good enough for the Senate,” Schumer continued.

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/mcconnell-gives-democrats-just-two-days-trump-impeachment-trial-senate

McConnell Gives Democrats Just Two Days For Trump Impeachment Trial In Senate

House impeachment managers will have just two days to prosecute their case against President Donald Trump according to a resolution circulated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a move meant to accelerates the timetable for a trial Republicans intend to end in a speedy acquittal. President Trump’s team will also have two days to present their arguments and then senators will have a chance to ask questions and consider subpoenas of witnesses.

According to The Hill, both sides will have 24 hours to make their first round of arguments, the same amount of time House impeachment managers and Bill Clinton’s lawyers received in 1999, but it limits them to just two days each, instead of the three allowed in Bill Clinton's impeachment trial more than 20 years ago. A Senate GOP leadership aide noted that prosecutors in the Clinton trial didn’t use all of their allotted time and finished their opening arguments within three days.

The resolution does not require additional witnesses to be subpoenaed, much to the anger of Democrats, and does not allow House prosecutors to admit evidence into the Senate trial record until after the opening arguments are heard. The rules would also allow the president’s team to seek a quick dismissal of the charges, though many Republican senators have said they should at least hear the case.

In response, the top Senate Democrat, Charles Schumer quickly pushed back and vowed to force votes on amendments. “Sen. McConnell’s resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace,” Schumer said in a statement Monday afternoon, further accusing McConnell of casting aside public statements that he would use the same rules as under the Clinton trial, adding that the majority leader is clearly “hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses and documents and intent on rushing the trial through.”

Schumer also said in a statement Monday evening that he will offer amendments to alter “the many flaws” in a “deeply unfair proposal,” as well as to subpoena further witnesses and documents.
The resolution also includes language favored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other GOP moderates requiring a debate and vote on subpoenaing new witnesses and documents.
Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who worked with McConnell and Collins to modify the resolution, said it “guarantees a vote on whether we need additional evidence at the appropriate time."
Schumer argues that forcing House managers to cram their opening arguments into a two-day window will force them to present on the Senate floor well into the evening and possibly past midnight.
“McConnell’s resolution stipulates that key facts be delivered in the wee hours of the night simply because he doesn’t want the American people to hear them,” Schumer said.

According to the resolution, House managers will be allowed to begin their arguments 1 p.m. Wednesday.
In response, a Senate GOP leadership aide told the Hill that in 1999, the House prosecutors and the president’s defense team each used fewer than 12 hours over a three-day period. “This resolution provides the same time but more structure for the arguments,” the aide said. The resolution also provides 16 hours for senators to ask questions.
In another departure from the 1999 organizing resolution, McConnell’s measure does not allow evidence from the House impeachment inquiry to be entered into the Senate trial record until after the question of additional witnesses and documents receives consideration. McConnell reportedly did this in response to Trump’s lawyers not having the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the House hearings.
"The White House was denied due process throughout the 12 weeks of partisan House proceedings," the source said.

Additionally, according to McConnell’s resolution if the Senate votes at the end of phase one against subpoenaing witnesses, then it will not be possible to consider additional motions on specific witnesses. Democrats have said they want to subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, senior White House adviser Robert Blair and senior Office of Management Budget official Michael Duffey.
The Senate will vote on the resolution Tuesday.
Schumer called on moderate Republican colleagues to reconsider McConnell’s aggressive timeline: “Any senator that votes for the McConnell resolution will be voting to hide information and evidence,” he said in his statement.

“I will be offering amendments to address the many flaws in this deeply unfair proposal and to subpoena the witnesses and documents we have requested,” he added.
* * *
The White House immediately backed McConnell’s rules, but didn’t indicate whether it would press a quick vote on a motion to dismiss.
"Protecting the president’s rights to offer pretrial motions was critical for us to support the package, and we’re very gratified with the resolution,” said Eric Ueland, the White House’s liaison to Congress. “I’m not going to talk about trial strategy publicly."
“It makes sense” to file a motion to dismiss because in every criminal case where there is no wrongdoing, you should try and get a dismissal, Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s defense team, said in an interview Monday evening.
Earlier on Monday, the White House and impeachment managers from the House of Representatives released a pair of filings where both sides argued that constitutional separation of powers is at stake in the trial.
The president’s 171-page filing contends that the House failed to prove that the president explicitly linked aid for Ukraine to an investigation Trump sought into political rival and former Vice President Joe Biden. And the president’s lawyers argued that the Senate should swiftly reject the impeachment articles.

[soonernvolved]

The Manager’s statement was released by the House Intelligence Committee, whose Chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was appointed leader of the Managers by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=917

This morning, the House Managers in the impeachment trial of the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump – Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Jason Crow, and Sylvia Garcia – issued the following joint statement:

“For weeks, Mitch McConnell has asserted that he planned to follow the ‘Clinton precedent’ for structuring President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial. It is now clear why he hid his proposed resolution all this time and released it the night before the trial is set to begin. His resolution deviates sharply from the Clinton precedent — and common sense — in an effort to prevent the full truth of the President’s misconduct from coming to light.

“In the Clinton case, the President provided all of the documents — more than 90,000 pages of them — before the trial took place. McConnell’s resolution rejects that basic necessity. And in the Clinton case, all of the witnesses had testified before the Senate trial began, and the only issue was whether they would be re-called to testify once more. The substance of what they would say was already known. Here, McConnell is trying to prevent the witnesses from ever testifying, and the public from ever finding out what they have to say.

“If those efforts are successful, this will be the first impeachment trial in American history in which the Senate did not allow the House to present its case with witnesses and documents. The McConnell Resolution goes so far as to suggest it may not even allow the evidence gathered by the House to be admitted. That is not a fair trial. In fact, it is no trial at all.

“A White House-driven and rigged process, with a truncated schedule designed to go late into the night and further conceal the President’s misconduct, is not what the American people expect or deserve.

“There should be a fair trial — fair to the President, yes, but equally important, fair to the American people. Any Senator who wants the same, should reject the McConnell Resolution.”

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/21/desperate-adam-schiff-tries-to-disqualify-white-house-counsel-from-impeachment-trial/

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the other House impeachment managers sent a letter Tuesday to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone seeking to disqualify him from representing President Donald Trump at the Senate trial.

The argument: because the articles of impeachment allege Trump committed “obstruction of Congress” by following legal advice to decline subpoenas, the lawyer who advised him is a “material fact witness.”

The letter argues: “Evidence indicates that, at a minimum, you have detailed knowledge of the facts regarding the first Article and played an instrumental role in the conduct charged in the second Article. The ethical rules generally preclude a lawyer from acting as an advocate at a trial in which he is likely also a necessary witness.”

If Cipollone is to represent the president, Schiff and the Democrats argue, he should have to “disclose all facts and information to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President’s legal advocate.”

In other words, Cipollone would have to violate attorney-client privilege and his duty of confidentiality to his client, effectively disqualifying him from participating.

The extraordinary letter is the latest in a series of bold — or desperate — tactics by House Democrats determined to retain control of an impeachment process that has passed into the hands of the Republican-controlled Senate.
Democrats are, in effect, arguing that the president does not have the right to any legal counsel other than counsel who follows their instructions — an echo of Schiff’s warning last year that any attempt to assert the president’s rights would be considered evidence of obstruction.
Ironically, Cippollone’s trial memorandum Monday responding to the House articles of impeachment argues that Schiff himself is an “interested fact witness” whose role made the entire House impeachment inquiry illegitimate.
The memorandum argued:
[T]he House’s factual investigation was supervised by an interested fact witness, Chairman Schiff, who—after falsely denying it—admitted that his staff had been in contact with the whistleblower and had given him guidance. See Part II.C. These three fundamental errors infected the underpinnings of this trial, and the Senate cannot constitutionally rely upon House Democrats’ tainted record to reach any verdict other than acquittal.
By Schiff’s own logic, he would have to be disqualified from prosecuting the case against the president, since he may be a witness.


The Senate trial begins Tuesday afternoon. Democrats have accused Senate Republicans of a “cover up” by adopting an accelerated schedule for what they once called an urgent process.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Rep. Jason Crow argued that President Trump’s delay in sending Javelin missiles to Ukraine was a high crime or misdemeanor.

Trump sent JAVELIN MISSILES to the Ukrainian military.
Barack Obama sent BLANKETS!

[soonernvolved]

And here we are.
It took Democrats about five hours before they went there and accused President Trump of assisting Vlad Putin in the upcoming election.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-new-documents-show-democrat-adam-schiff-mischaracterized-evidence-in-impeachment-report-suggests

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/21/white-house-counsel-nukes-jerry-nadler-this-is-the-united-states-senate-youre-not-in-charge-here/

White House Counsel Pat Cipolline blasted House impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on the floor of the Senate early Wednesday morning during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump for making “false accusations” against the president and the Senate.

“The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you, for the way you addressed this body. This is the United States Senate. You’re not in charge here,” Cipollone said.



The White House counsel was responding to Nadler’s lengthy speech advocating for an amendment to subpoena former National Security Advisor John Bolton. Bolton has said he would be willing to testify, though the House failed to call him to testify during its own impeachment inquiry. Democrats hope that he will shed light on what impeachment managers called a “scheme” by the president to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election.

But Nadler began by accusing the White House counsel of lying — a striking breach that would likely have been disciplined in any ordinary court of law. “They lie,” he claimed. “And lie, and lie, and lie,” he repeated.

Nadler went on to argue that if the Senate voted against the Democrats’ proposed amendment to a procedural resolution — which would only accelerate the decision on Bolton to an earlier stage of the trial — they would be “voting against the United States.” When it was Cipollone’s turn to respond, he had clearly had enough.

He said:

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate. We came here today to address the false case brought to you by the House managers. … We’ve been respectful of the Senate. We’ve made our arguments to you. And you don’t deserve, and we don’t deserve, what just happened. Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team. He made false allegations against all of you: he accused you of a ‘cover up.” He’s been making false allegations against the president.

Turning to address Nadler, Cipollone concluded:

“The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you, for the way you addressed this body. This is the United States Senate. You’re not in charge here.”
As to the issue of Bolton’s testimony, Cipollone reminded Democrats that the House had decided not to call him in its own impeachment inquiry.

He then addressed Nadler again, reminding him that he had once argued that a partisan impeachment would deprive the American people of their vote. “What happened, Mr. Nadler?” Cipollone asked.

“Mr. Nadler, you owe an apology to the President of the United States and his family. You owe an apology to the Seate. But most of all, you owe an apology to the American people.”



Co-counsel Jay Sekulow then stepped in and attacked Nadler for calling executive privilege “nonsense,” and for arguing that “only guilty people try to hide evidence.”
“To shred the Constitution on the floor of the Senate — to serve what purpose?” Sekulow said. “The Senate is not on trial. The Constitution does not allow what just took place.”


Nadler tried to respond, repeating a false claim that President Trump claimed “monarchical powers” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, alleging Trump believed “I can do whatever I want.” The claim is a misquote that ignores the context, which is that Trump was talking specifically about the power to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

[soonernvolved]

“I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House Managers and the President’s counsel in equal terms to remember they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body. One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.

In the 1905 Swain trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word ‘pettifogging’ and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used. I don’t think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”

[soonernvolved]

www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jan/22/appear-in-court-explain-judge-orders-hu/?news-arkansas#.XihXQgVWOG0.twitter

Hunter Biden must appear Jan. 29 in a Batesville courtroom and explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt for violating court orders to provide financial information in his Arkansas paternity case.

Independence County Circuit Judge Holly Meyer signed an “Order to Appear and Show Cause” on Monday, a day when Arkansas courts were closed to honor the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The judge’s order was filed into the court record Tuesday.

The one-sentence order was prepared by Clinton and Jennifer Lancaster, attorneys for Lunden Alexis Roberts, the mother of Biden’s 16-month-old child.

Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, is being ordered to appear in the Arkansas courtroom days after President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial began in the Senate. Hunter Biden has been mentioned as a possible witness in the impeachment proceedings.

[soonernvolved]

President Trump: I didn’t think Bill Clinton should have been impeached. And I was pretty vocal about that. I didn’t know Ken but what I did know was that he was very smart. He was very tough. He was very talented. But in a certain way I was sticking up for Bill Clinton… With me there’s no lying, there’s nothing. They don’t even have a crime. They say this is the only one who’s ever been impeached and he didn’t even commit a crime. He didn’t commit a crime. Then you get into high crimes and misdemeanors, but I didn’t commit a crime…

Reporter: So will you show up to your trial anyday?

President Trump: I’d love to go. I’d love to sit right in the front row and stare at their corrupt faces. I’d love to do it. Don’t keep talking because you may convince me to do it… I looked at Adam Schiff, he’ll stare into the camera… These are sleazebags, very dishonest people.

[soonernvolved]

www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/schiff-parnas-trump-evidence-101832

The issue arose when Schiff (D-Calif.) sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) last week summarizing a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. In one section of the letter, Schiff claims that Parnas “continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky,” citing a specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani: “trying to get us mr Z.” The remainder of the exchange — which was attached to Schiff’s letter — was redacted.

But an unredacted version of the exchange shows that several days later, Parnas sent Giuliani a word document that appears to show notes from an interview with Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma, followed by a text message to Giuliani that states: “mr Z answers my brother.” That suggests Parnas was referring to Zlochevsky not Zelensky.

[soonernvolved]

Rep. Elise Stefanik: The Democrats’ case is so flimsy that they’re scrambling at this point. And if you take a step back and really remember the House impeachment proceedings Republicans were not able to call our requested witnesses. So Adam Schiff is being completely hypocritical. The only thing he has said that’s accurate is that this is an unfair trial. It’s unfair to the president. This impeachment process has been going on for 70+ days. Yesterday was the first day that the President’s legal team was able to participate. That is unprecedented.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/dangerous-historical-precedent-21-state-ags-send-letter-asking-senate-to-reject-impeachment

The attorneys general of 21 states – predictably all Republicans – have sent a letter to the Senate opposing the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Fox News exclusively reported on the letter, which was submitted to the Senate on Wednesday morning and called the impeachment “a dangerous historical precedent.”


“If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers’ design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers,” the attorneys general wrote.

“Impeachment should never be a partisan response to one party losing a presidential election. If successful, an impeachment proceeding nullifies the votes of millions of citizens. The Democrat-controlled House passing of these constitutionally-deficient articles of impeachment amounts, at bottom, to a partisan political effort that undermines the democratic process itself. Even an unsuccessful effort to impeach the President undermines the integrity of the 2020 presidential election because it weaponizes a process that should only be initiated in exceedingly rare circumstances and should never be used for partisan purposes,” they continued.

The attorneys general added: “This body should never permit impeachment proceedings to proceed where they are permeated with the clearly partisan objective of energizing a political party’s base to, ultimately, influence a presidential election. Such a raw political and unconstitutional use of the impeachment power should not be countenanced by the Senate.”


The attorneys general suggest that the Democrats’ claim that Trump abused his power of the presidency is constitutionally flaw and suggests Trump “can be impeached for exercising concededly lawful constitutional authority ‘motivated’ by thoughts a House majority unilaterally deems ‘corrupt.’” They point out the Democrats first article of impeachment does not identify any high crimes or misdemeanors committed by Trump but instead repeats the phrase “abuse of power” for effect.

As to Democrats’ second article of impeachment, claiming Trump obstructed Congress, the attorneys general wrote that, under “the House’s ‘unilateral control’ theory of obstruction, the President could be impeached anytime he vigorously invokes and seeks to protect executive privilege in response to the House’s demand for Executive Branch information.”

The attorneys general suggested that if House Democrats seriously believed Trump was unjustified to invoke executive privilege, it should have taken the traditional route of going to court to challenge the assertion. Instead, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) withdrew the subpoena and plowed ahead with impeachment.

The attorneys general later in their letter take Democrats to task for delaying the Impeachment trial by refusing to hand over the articles of impeachment for nearly a month.


“A delayed impeachment trial also harms the nation because it cripples the office holder’s ability to govern effectively and attempts to cast a pall over his legitimacy, a pall which is lifted only by conviction or acquittal. When the officeholder is the President of the United States, a delayed impeachment is particularly harmful, because undermining a President’s constitutional authority, even temporarily, creates serious risks to national security and the separation of powers,” they wrote.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/22/as-the-impeachment-trial-begins-democrats-are-losing-their-minds/

As The Impeachment Trial Begins, Democrats Are Losing Their Minds
Having realized their impeachment gambit is failing, Democrats have resorted to accusing Sen. Mitch McConnell of a coverup and calling the trial 'rigged.'
John Daniel Davidson
By John Daniel Davidson
JANUARY 22, 2020
On Monday, as senators and House impeachment managers prepared for the opening of President Trump’s impeachment trial Tuesday, Democrats and their courtiers in the mainstream press decided to ratchet up the their rhetoric to the point of delusional hysteria.

The House managers—led by Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler—issued a statement that essentially accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of a coverup, saying his proposed rules for the trial are “rigged,” nothing more than an “effort to prevent the full truth of the President’s misconduct from coming to light.”


That wasn’t all. Schiff and the impeachment managers also called on Trump’s lead impeachment lawyer, Pat A. Cipollone, to disclose what he knows about the president’s alleged behavior underlying the two articles of impeachment, saying Cipollone is a “material fact witness,” and that, “The ethical rules generally preclude a lawyer from acting as an advocate at a trial in which he is likely also a necessary witness.”

Funny they should mention that. As my colleague Mollie Hemingway pointed out on Twitter, Schiff is himself a material fact witness to this entire impeachment imbroglio, beginning with his office’s coordination with the whistleblower.

As for McConnell’s rules being some kind of coverup, compare them to the House impeachment inquiry, which turned up no evidence of a crime despite Schiff stacking the deck in Democrats’ favor by not allowing GOP members to call witnesses or ask substantive questions.

By those standards, McConnell’s proposed rules are generous to Democrats, stipulating a four-day calendar in which each side gets two days, 12 hours per day, just for opening statements. After that, senators would have 16 hours for written questions for the prosecution and defense, then four hours of debate—all to adjudicate a purely partisan impeachment probe that after months failed to persuade even one GOP member of the House that Trump had committed an impeachable offence.


To a certain mindset—apparently rampant among Democrats and media elites—none of this matters. Nothing we learned during the House impeachment inquiry, not to mention what we all know about Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after the White House released the transcript, seems to matter to Democrats hell-bent on delegitimizing the Trump presidency.

If their impeachment removal gamble fails, as it inevitably will, they’ll say it only failed because McConnell rigged the trial, or because the president covered up his crimes by instructing key witnesses not to cooperate, or because all Republicans are corrupt. The narrative takeaway will be that Democrats tried to save the country and the Constitution by removing a dangerous criminal from the White House, but were thwarted, and only voters can stop Trump now by throwing him out of office in November. After all, the future of the republic is at stake.

Impeachment Is Untethering Some People From Reality
The overdone rhetoric turned out to be contagious, especially for Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol, a formerly serious person who on Monday compared the upcoming Senate impeachment trial to a show trial in an authoritarian state.

Perhaps the best example of this fevered mindset whirling away in real time is a Twitter thread from Will Wilkinson of the Niskanen Center, who warned that an acquittal would amount to a “war on the Constitution and the rule of law,” and that “McConnell will not only be striking a blow to our democracy, he will be communicating that [there] are no rules, only power.”

He goes on to suggest that McConnell is exposing the political process as a “sham,” that Trump is “dead set on stealing the election to stay out of jail and line his pockets with impunity,” and the result of all this will be violence in the streets because “we can’t just ‘decide it at the ballot box” if the ballot box is stuffed.”

Does Wilkinson really think that’s what happening here? Or does he just think that if the Democratic Party and its media allies fail to overturn the results of a free and fair election with a years-long string of investigations and half-baked accusations against the president, then that’s really what amounts to election theft and a stuffed ballot box? In other words, Democrats’ impotent efforts to remove Trump are proof positive that the republic itself is in danger, and our political process is a “sham.”


What’s most telling in these Twitter rants is the apparent unawareness that for many Americans, the political process has indeed been revealed as a sham—a long time ago. After decades of elite incompetence and corruption, from illegal immigration to the Iraq war to Katrina, the housing crash and ensuing recession, the sluggish recovery and the dismal reality of Obamacare, Americans have plenty of reasons to think the Constitution has been trashed, voters have been ignored, and the entire political process exposed as a sham run by our elites for their benefit at the expense of everyone else.

What the American people did about it was elect Trump president. For the political and media establishment, that’s Trump’s real crime, and the one thing that must not be allowed to happen again.

Language Games Reveal More About Dems Than Trump
To make any rational sense in their arguments, they must evacuate terms like “election theft” and “democracy” of all meaning. Trump of course didn’t steal an election in 2016, and if he wins again in 2020 that won’t be a stolen election, either. But this mangling of language is a common trope among the impeachment crowd.

As Eric Felton of Real Clear Investigations noted in a thorough fisking of a brief from Democratic impeachment managers, Schiff and his crew “are convinced that thin allegations can be bulked up if repeated often enough.” Felton points to the repeated use of words and phrases like “baseless,” “debunked,” “discredited,” and “conspiracy theory” whenever impeachment managers discuss questions and assertions made by Trump or Rudy Giuliani about Ukraine or Hunter Biden.

For example, the brief entirely ignores a January 2017 report in Politico about efforts of officials in Kiev to boost Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump in 2016, and instead repeat, dozens of times, that concerns or questions about possible 2016 election interference from Ukrainian officials are nothing more than a “conspiracy theory.”

Most Americans are wise to this sort of thing. They realized a long time ago that the political establishments of both parties care about power above all and have long governed on behalf of special interests, not the people. Most Americans also know that despite earnest paeons to the Constitution in recent months, Democrats don’t care about the Constitution and would be happy to get rid of much of it, including the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights.

So in the days ahead, when Schiff and other Democratic leaders mention a “rigged” trial or a “sham” process, they’re unintentionally invoking language that many Americans have been using for some time now—not about Trump, but about the political establishment they elected Trump to overthrow.

[soonernvolved]

www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/22/whistleblower_was_overheard_in_17_discussing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html

Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower” who touched off Trump’s impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.

Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko.

“Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,” said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.

“They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda,” the former official added. “They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.”

Two former co-workers said they overheard Ciaramella and Misko, close friends and Democrats held over from the Obama administration, discussing how to “take out,” or remove, the new president from office within days of Trump’s inauguration. These co-workers said the president’s controversial Ukraine phone call in July 2019 provided the pretext they and their Democratic allies had been looking for.

“They didn’t like his policies,” another former White House official said. “They had a political vendetta against him from Day One.”
...........


Sean Misko is now one of Adam Schiff’s top aides.

[soonernvolved]

It was another display of horrible lies and smears against this historic president.

Schiff called President Trump a would-be “king” who sought foreign interference in the US elections.
Schiff then accused President Trump of wishing “to cheat” in the 2020 elections.

[soonernvolved]

Adam Schiff went off on a deranged Trump-Russia screed during his opening arguments at the Senate Impeachment Trial.

Schiff went from lie to conspiracy throughout his 40 minute opening argument.

It was outrageous and insane!

Schiff opened up calling President Trump a “king” and “cheat” and then moved on to assert that President Trump is a puppet of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

It does not matter that the Mueller Report found NO CONTACTS between President Trump and the Russian leader in 2016.

This is completely insane.

[soonernvolved]

So, Schiff protected Nadler from reporter questions today:

[soonernvolved]