James Comey

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/bozell-graham-adam-schiffs-avalanche-of-accolades

Our media elites arrogantly lecture about our democracy being undermined by robotic propaganda, but do they ever listen to themselves talk about the Democrats? Somehow, they think their robotic propaganda is just the “truth.” The press came to witness the Senate impeachment trial, and Rep. Adam Schiff had them at hello.


No member of Congress has been more dramatically partisan in this war on the Trump presidency than Schiff. Did you know he’s the second coming of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg? Check out this list of the media’s responses to his opening statement at the trial.

1.”I think it’ll go down as one of the great performances … He just shreds the other side every time he gets up,” claimed MSNBC’s Jonathan Alter.

2. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer declared it was “a very, very powerful and forceful speech … a very, very strong case from Adam Schiff.”

3. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called it “dazzling … really remarkable” and said, “It was the second-best courtroom address, since it’s like a courtroom, that I ever heard.”


4. On Twitter, Washington Post reporter Greg Miller oozed, “the way he has handled impeachment will leave a mark on history, exceeding nearly all contemporaries.”

5. Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin wrote a valentine to Schiff’s “grand slam” with the headline “Adam Schiff’s Brilliant Presentation Is Knocking Down Excuses to Acquit.”


6. ABC’s Terry Moran said: “It was meticulous and well-organized. It was grounded in evidence, which he recited and arranged … in a comprehensive narrative. At times, he tried to rise to a level of eloquence and stir a sense of responsibility for the Senate.”

7. MSNBC’s Jason Johnson insisted Schiff wasn’t just talking to senators: “He was speaking to 100 years in the future. This is a speech that kids are going to be giving in 2060 … at university projects.”

Get 4 Lines for $25 a Month when you Switch to Boost Mobile
Get 4 Samsung Galaxy phones when you make the switch to Boost’s super reliable, super-fast nationwide network
Ad By Boost Mobile
See More



8. CNN’s Paul Begala seconded that emotion: “I believe what Adam Schiff said yesterday is going to be studied 40 or 50 years from now.”

9. MSNBC lovebirds Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski echoed each other in adoring Schiff’s “virtuoso performance.”

Then these people wonder why Americans watch Fox News instead! To love Schiff’s case, you have to believe that a single phone call from the president to the Ukrainian president is somehow an impeachable offense on the level of abuse of power and obstruction of the House.

What’s entirely missing from this tsunami of saccharine sentiments is an important counterargument. Schiff has lied and manipulated this entire process. Schiff’s staff was working with the “whistleblower” in August, before his complaint was filed. But then Schiff lied shamelessly on MSNBC on Sept. 17, saying, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” Two days later, he lied again when he thanked Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, without whom he “might not have even known there was a whistleblower complaint.”

The “fact-checkers” actually tagged Schiff on this, but how serious was their evaluation? Consider this: PolitiFact was founded in 2007, and this was the first time it has ever found an error in his statements. Since 2012, Sen. Ted Cruz has been subjected to 143 fact-checks, while Schiff has two.

The dishonesty of Schiff emerged again during the trial, as when he mischaracterized text messages from Ukraine-scandal figure Lev Parnas to Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani. As usual, the Schiff-adoring networks skipped right over his lies.

But they lecture us about the integrity of democracy.

[soonernvolved]

In his opening statement Cipollone accused Democrats of the most massive election interference in US history. Cipollone accused Democrats and House Managers of wanting to remove President Trump from 2020 ballot.

[soonernvolved]

Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura opened the White House defense of President Donald Trump with video of Adam Schiff’s fake call and transcript he read during the House impeachment proceedings.




It was all a lie.
Schiff got caught and then said it was satire, a joke.

But it was a lie. It was all made up.
Democrats think impeachment is funny.

Mike Purpura played the video immediately after taking the podium on Saturday.

THIS WAS BRUTAL!

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

President Trump’s defense team is expected to hold senators for 2 to 3 hours and then resume their opening arguments on Monday.

Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura opened the White House defense of President Donald Trump with video of Adam Schiff’s fake call and transcript he read during the House impeachment proceedings.

Trump Attorney Jay Sekulow came up next and DUNKED on the lying Democrats.

Sekulow brought up with him a copy of the Mueller investigation and reminded the US Senate and House Democrats that Robert Mueller found absolutely ZERO COLLUSION between President Trump and Russia during the 2016 elections. The Crossfire Hurricane investigation was the crime — NOT Donald Trump’s actions with Russian operatives. Trump had no interactions with Russian operatives.

It is ALWAYS good to drop some reality on the heads of these insane Democrat hacks.

[soonernvolved]

Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin took the podium at 11:30 AM.

Philbin, a former Comey deputy, was absolutely brilliant!

Patrick Philbin OBLITERATED the Pelosi impeachment process.

Philbin pointed out the partisan, defective and unprecedented tactics Democrats used in their sham impeachment process.

Philbin has a soft and serious tone that was very effective.

[soonernvolved]

Philbin pointed out the partisan, defective and unprecedented tactics Democrats used in their sham impeachment process.

Philbin has a soft and serious tone that was very effective.

Then Patrick Philbin turned his sights on liar Adam Schiff.
This was BRUTAL!

Philbin exposed Adam Schiff’s lies and corruption.



Patrick Philbin: What changed? At first Manager Schiff agreed we should hear the unfiltered testimony from the whistleblower. But then he changed his mind… There was something else that came into play. And that was something Manager Schiff had said earlier when he was asked about whether he had spoken to the whistleblower.

Schiff: (TV clip) Uh, we have not spoken directly to the whistleblower. We would like to.

Patrick Philbin: And it turned out that statement was not truthful. Around October 2nd or 3rd it was exposed that Manager Schiff’s staff – at least — had spoken with the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed the complaint. And potentially had given some guidance of some sort to the whistleblower. And after that point it became critical to shut down any inquiry into the whistleblower… And Manager Schiff was in charge. He was chairing the hearings. And that creates a real problem from a due process perspective, from a search for truth perspective. Because he was an interested fact witness at that point. He had a reason. Since he had been caught out saying something that wasn’t true… It was he who ensured there wasn’t any inquiry into that… The Mueller Report… determined there was no conclusion. That wasn’t true… Chairman Schiff has made so much of the House case about the credibility of interpretations that the House managers want to place, on not hard evidence, but on inferences. They want to tell you what President Trump thought. They want to tell you don’t worry about what Zelensky said we can tell you what Zelensky actually thought… It is very relevant to know whether the assessment of evidence he’s presented in the past are accurate.

Patrick Philbin just exposed the dirty liar.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/25/live-updates-impeachment-trial-trumps-team-begin-opening-arguments/

12:01 PM: Trial adjourned until 1 PM ET on Monday.

11:55 PM: Cipollone says Schiff did not show up at the House hearing to be asked questions about his report and did not show Chairman Nadler “respect” by not showing up like Ken Starr did. He says impeachment shouldn’t be a shell game and Democrats should give the Senators the facts. He asks the Senators to think about that whenever they learn of everything the Democrats have omitted. He says it would be a complete “abuse of power” to do what Democrats are asking the Senators to do. He thanks the Senators for their attention, and he says he looks forward to seeing them on Monday.

11:40 AM: On due process, Philbin says there was a suggestion that due process was not required and is “just a privilege.” He says due process was denied to Trump in the first two rounds of hearings, especially in the secret round of hearings in the first round. He has Nadler never responded to letters from the White House inquiring about process, and says it is inaccurate to say the White House got due process throughout the House hearings. He says Trump was “completely locked out” for 71 of 78 days.

11:30 AM: Pat Philbin up to talk about obstruction and due process issues. He says there has not been “blanket defiance” of subpoenas and the White House has had a legal explanation for every resistance. He says the Office of Legal Counsel has had a legal explanation for every one.

11:15 AM: Sekulow says House Managers ignored the testimony of witnesses who said Trump had longstanding concerns about corruption in Ukraine. He also says the facts from the Democrats’ hearing also establish that Trump was concerned about burden-sharing.

11:00 AM: Sekulow says disagreeing with Trump’s foreign policy agenda is “not an impeachable offense.”

10:56 AM: Jay Sekulow now up, says Senators cannot decide this case in a vacuum. He asks Senators to put themselves in Trump’s shoes. He says before Trump was sworn into office, he was subjected to an FBI investigation and, within 6 months of his inauguration, found a Special Counsel appointed to investigate “Russia collusion” that eventually did not establish collusion. He says House Managers tried to re-litigate it.

10:52 AM: Purpura says most of the witnesses never spoke to Trump and points out that when Sondland and Sen. Johnson (R-WI) asked Trump about the security assistance, he said there was no quid pro quo. He says Democrats are building their case on the assumptions and presumptions of Sondland. He says Democrats did not play Sondland’s clip in which he told Schiff that Trump told him there was no quid pro quos of any kind.

10:47 AM: Purpura says the House Managers know that the Ukrainians not knowing about pause on security assistance “is fatal to their cause” so they are trying to “muddy the waters.”

10:39 AM: Purpura says Democrats didn’t tell Senators about Volker’s testimony about Ukrainians not know that military aid was being withheld. Plays Stefanik’s exchange in the House with Volker. He says Democrats are trying to be mind-readers and claiming to know what Zelensky was thinking better than Zelensky. Purpura says there cannot be a quid pro quo “without the quo.”

10:35 AM: Purpura says Jennifer Williams was so concerned about Trump’s call that she didn’t tell anybody for two months and waited until Pelosi started to conduct the impeachment inquiry. He plays Morrison’s testimony in the House in which he stated that he did not hear Trump demand anything from the Ukrainians on the call.

10:33 AM: Purpura says Democrats did not show Senators Yovanovitch’ testimony in which she said the Javelin missiles were not part of the security assistance. He says Trump was not referring to himself when he said “do us a favor” and Democrats are trying to “confuse” Senators by omitting Yovanovitch’s testimony about the Javelin missiles.

10:25 AM: Purpura says “the president did nothing wrong” and was, “at all times, acting in the national interest.” Purpura now speaking about how Trump approaches foreign aid. Trump, he says, is concerned about burden-sharing and corruption.



10:18 AM: Cipollone yields to Mike Purpura, the deputy White House counsel, who plays the clip of Schiff making up quotes from Trump. Purpura says the most important piece of evidence is “the actual transcript” of Trump’s call. He says if that were the only evidence they had, it would be enough to show that the Democrats’ entire theory is “completely unfounded.” He says once the “bluster and innuendo” are swept away, we are left with six key facts that have not and will not change.

Purpura says the transcript shows no quid pro quo. He says Zelensky and other officials have said there was no quid pro quo. Third, Zelensky and other officials did not even know the assistance was paused until after the call. Fourth, not a single witness testified that Trump himself said there was a quid pro quo. Fifth, the security assistance flowed on September 11 without the Ukrainian government announcing anything. Sixth, Trump has been a better friend and supporter of Ukraine than Obama.

10:15 AM: Cipollone says Senators will discover that Trump has a strong record confronting Russia, according to the House’s witnesses. Cipollone asks why Democrats would lock everyone out of it and run the process they did if they were really interested in finding the truth. He says it’s evidence Democrats don’t even really believe in the facts of their case. He says Democrats are here to “perpetuate the most massive interference” in an election in history.

10:07 AM: Pat Cipollone leads off and says they will be “respectful” of everyone’s time and will focus on two points. He says Democrats have not come “anywhere close to meeting their burden for what they’re asking you to do” and they do not intend to use all 24 hours.

“You will find that the president did absolutely nothing wrong,” he says. Cipollone says they intend to go through various pieces of evidence Democrats did not decide to show. He says House Managers should have given Senators all of the facts because they are asking Senators to do something “consequential” and “very, very dangerous.” He tells Senators that Democrats are asking them to overturn the results of the last election and remove Trump from the ballot that is occurring in about nine months. He says Democrats are asking Senators to tear up ballots and take that decision away from the American people.

10:05 AM: Senators recite the Pledge of Allegiance and the trial is about to resume. McConnell says today’s session will be 2-3 hours.

9:50 AM: House Managers will deliver their trial record (28,000 pages) to the Senate. Trump’s team is up at the top of the hour.

[soonernvolved]

Schiff responds to the President's team destroying his three days of arguments in just two hours:

Speaking of withholding documents, Schiff is still hiding the transcript of Michael Atkinson’s testimony. Wonder why that is? Mayhaps it's because he knows it will reveal he coordinated with the whistleblower to launch an impeachment against Trump? Combine this with half of the FISA requests against Carter Page are now considered to be illegal, and it's not a good look for Schiff and company.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

You know it’s bad for the Dems when even CNN admits President Trump is winning in the impeachment trial. CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin admitted on Saturday that President Trump and the Republicans are destroying the Democrats.

“I just think that the Republicans are winning here. The President is winning here,” CNN’s chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on Saturday.

WATCH:

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/01/25/joni-ernst-white-house-impeachment-counsel-shredded-case/

Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst on Saturday reacted to the White House counsel’s defense against impeaching President Donald Trump, saying they “shredded” the House managers’ case in just two hours.

“Within two hours I thought that the White House Counsel and their team entirely shredded the case that has been presented by the house managers,” Ernst said to reporters on Capitol Hill after listening to Trump’s lawyers.

The White House’s defense team had its first opportunity to deliver their opening arguments in the impeachment trial against Trump in the Senate. The team has 24 hours over three days to make its arguments, but they might not use all 24 hours of their time.

Pat Cipollone, Michael Purpura, Patrick Philbin, and Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow all were in charge of laying out their defense during Saturday’s impeachment trial. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: We Asked Every GOP Senator About Impeachment. Seven Ruled It Out.)


Primis Player Placeholder


During the trial, Sekulow said, “I am not going to continue to go over and over and over again the evidence that they did not put before you because we would be here for a lot longer than 24 hours.”

According to The Hill, Cipollone said, “We don’t believe that they have come anywhere close to meeting their burden for what they’re asking you to do. In fact, we believe that when you hear the facts … you will find that the president did absolutely nothing wrong.” (RELATED: Graham Rips Democrats Over Trump Impeachment Process: ‘I Wouldn’t Cooperate’)

The House of Representatives officially voted Jan. 15 to send the articles of impeachment against Trump to the Senate and approved the House’s impeachment managers.

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/01/25/joe-manchin-donald-trump-john-bolton/

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia said Saturday that President Donald Trump’s legal defense did a “good job” defending the president after House Democrats made their case for impeachment.

Trump’s legal defense is “making me think about things,” Manchin, a Democrat, told CNN’s Manu Raju. His comments come as Trump’s team is given a period of time to defend the president’s dealings with Ukraine’s president.


“One thing that stuck in my mind is they said there isn’t a witness they have had so far that had direct contact with the president. I’d love to hear from [Office of Management and Budget Director Mick] Mulvaney and [former national security adviser John] Bolton,” he said. “I’ll be very impartial til the end.”

House Democrats believe Bolton’s possible testimony in the impeachment trial could be a game-breaker, leading to more potential charges leveled against the president.


Former national security adviser John Bolton delivers remarks on North Korea at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Trump indicted in a Jan. 10 Fox News interview that he would use executive privilege to prevent Bolton’s testimony. (RELATED: Republican Senators Are Literally Playing With Kids’ Toys During The Impeachment Trial)

Bolton, once one of Trump’s biggest supporters, made several eyebrow-raising comments after getting fired from the White House, namely suggesting in November that America’s “national security priorities is under attack from within.”

Primis Player Placeholder


House Democratic leadership laid out the case for impeaching and removing the president from office on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

[soonernvolved]

Serial liar Adam Schiff laughably claimed on Saturday that he doesn’t even know who the whistleblower is.


President Trump’s defense team completely destroyed 3 days’ of Adam Schiff’s lies in just two hours.

GOP Senator John Barrasso said Schiff was so freaked out when Trump’s lawyers confronted him about his fake call and transcript that “the blood drained from Schiff’s face.“

The lashing was so bad that even CNN admitted President Trump is winning in the impeachment trial.

Schiff, Nadler and other House impeachment managers looked defeated as they gathered around the lectern to respond to Trump’s lawyers and take questions from reporters.

One reporter asked Schiff about Trump’s lead impeachment lawyer Pat Cipollone alleging Schiff coordinated with the whistleblower before the impeachment process began.

“It’s nonsense. I don’t even know who the whistleblower is,” Schiff said.



Interestingly, Schiff referred to the whistleblower as a “he” then quickly corrected himself and said “he or she.”

WATCH:

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/01/25/trump-lawyer-philbin-schiff-lied-whistleblower-russian-collusion/

White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin asked Saturday why Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff should be taken seriously on impeachment when he was “untruthful” about not knowing the whistleblower.

Philbin, who is part of President Donald Trump’s legal team for his Senate impeachment trial, noted that Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, also suggested he had evidence of Russian collusion from the Trump campaign when he obviously did not.



Speaking of Schiff’s relationship with the whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry, Philbin noted, “Around October 2nd or 3rd, it was exposed that manager Schiff’s staff, at least, had spoken with the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed the complaint and potentially had given some guidance of some sort to the whistleblower and after that point, it became critical to shut down any inquiry into the whistleblower.” (RELATED: Rep. Schiff Has Done 419 TV Interviews Pushing Russian Collusion Conspiracy)

Philbin continued, “Since he was saying something that wasn’t truthful about that contact, he had a reason to not want that inquiry and it was he who ensured that there wasn’t any inquiry into that … a lot of what we’ve heard over the past 23 hours, over the past three days, has been from Chairman Schiff … It’s his interpretation of the facts and evidence trying of pull inferences out of things.”

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - OCTOBER 03: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) delivers a lecture on The Threat to Liberal Democracy at Home and Abroad at Cahn Auditorium on the campus of Northwestern University on October 03, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. Schiff is Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) delivers a lecture on The Threat to Liberal Democracy at Home and Abroad at Cahn Auditorium on the campus of Northwestern University on October 03, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. Schiff is Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The White House counsel then referenced Schiff’s record on Russian collusion, showing a television news clip where the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee claimed he had secret evidence about the president being guilty of colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election. (RELATED: Rep. Adam Schiff Says Attorney General Is Doing Trump’s ‘Bidding’ By Accusing The FBI Of ‘Spying’)

When asked if he only had circumstantial evidence about collusion, Schiff said, “I can tell you that the case is more than that. And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence.”

Primis Player Placeholder


Philbin concluded: “And we wanted to point these things out simply because for this reason, Chairman Schiff has made so much of the House’s case about the credibility of interpretations that the House managers want to place on not hard evidence, but on inferences … That it is very relevant to know whether the assessments of evidence that he’s presented in the past are accurate. And we submit that they have not been, and that is relevant for your consideration.”

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/trump-legal-team-lays-out-6-point-case-crushing-democrats-impeachment-claims

President Donald Trump’s legal defense team laid out an aggressive six-point case dismantling the Democrats’ impeachment case on Saturday that was simply built around highlighting the facts of what happened surrounding Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.


Trump’s defense team only used two of the 24 hours that they were allotted during their first of three days that they have to argue in front of the Senate that Trump should be acquitted from the Democrats’ partisan impeachment charges.

Laying out Trump’s six-point defense was deputy White House counsel Michael Purpura, who said the following:

“The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren’t even mentioned on the call.”
“President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly said that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything.”
“President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know, did not even know, the security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call.”
“Not a single witness testified that the President himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else.”
“The security assistance flowed on September 11 and a presidential meeting took place on September 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.”
“The Democrats blind drive to impeach the president does not and cannot change the fact, as attested to by the Democrats own witnesses, that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor.”
“Those are the facts,” Purpura said. “Each one of these six facts standing alone is enough to sink the Democrats’ case. Combined they establish what we’ve known since the beginning, the president did absolutely nothing wrong.”

Purpura later highlighted that Ambassador Kurt Volker, the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine, who was not on the call but who met with Zelensky the day after the call, testified that in no way, shape, or form in either the readouts from the United States or Ukraine did [Zelensky] receive any indication that Trump was pursuing a quid pro quo.

Purpura cut back to Volker’s testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee last year where he confirmed under oath that there was no quid pro quo, no bribery, and Ukraine was not even aware that there was a temporary hold on U.S. financial assistance.


After playing the clip, Purpura said: “[Democrats] didn’t tell you about this testimony from Ambassador Volker. Why not? President Zelensky himself has confirmed on at least three separate occasions that his July 25 call with President Trump was a good phone call and normal and that nobody pushed me. When President Zelenksy’s advisor Andriy Yermak was asked if he had ever felt there was a connection between the US military aid in the request for investigations, he was adamant that we never had that feeling and we did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue.”

Purpura continued to hammer on the fact that all top Ukrainian officials indicated that there was no quid pro quo and later added that it was insulting to Ukraine that Democrats were essentially stating that Ukraine was not telling the truth about the situation.

Purpura also hit House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who is one of the Democrats’ impeachment managers, for fabricating quotes from Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenksy by playing a video clip showing Schiff fabricating the quotes during a televised congressional hearing.

After playing the clip, Purpura said: “That’s fake, that’s not the real call, that’s not the evidence here, that’s not the transcript that Mr. Cipollone just referenced and we can shrug it off and say we were making light, or a joke, but that was in a hearing in the United States House of Representatives discussing the removal of the President of the United States from office. There are very few things, if any, that can be as grave and as serious, let’s stick with the evidence let’s talk about the facts and the evidence in this case.”

Michael Purpura knocks Schiff for making up false transcript in impeachment hearing pic.twitter.com/TdRDjbTbUi

— Steve Guest (@steveguest) January 25, 2020



Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow noted that Democrats’ entire case was built on the notion that they were able to read “everybody’s thoughts, they can read everybody’s intention, even when the principal speakers, the witnesses themselves, insist that those interpretations are wrong.”

Sekulow spent a significant portion of time going after leftist Democrat Rep. Jason Crow (CO) for his dishonesty this week while presenting the Democrats’ case in front of the Senate.

“Manager Crow said this, ‘what’s most interesting to me about this is that president Trump was only interested in Ukraine aid.’ His words, nobody else, ‘the U.S. provides aids to dozens of countries around the world, lots of partners and allies, he didn’t ask about any of them asked he didn’t ask about any of them just Ukraine,’” Sekulow said as he highlighted Crow’s remarks. “Here’s what actually happened: President Trump has placed holds on aid a number of times, we can just take basic due diligence to figure this out.”

Sekulow gave the following examples of instances where the Trump administration has placed holds on foreign assistance:

In September 2019 the administration announced that it was withholding over $100 million in aid to Afghanistan over concerns about government corruption.
In August 2019 President Trump announced that the administration and Seoul were in talks to substantially increase South Korea’s share burden-sharing of the expenses of U.S. military aid support for South Korea.
In June, President Trump cut or paused over $550 million in foreign aid to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala because those countries were not fairly sharing the burdens of preventing mass migration to the United States.
In June, the administration temporarily paused $105 million dollars in aid to Lebanon, the administration lifted that hold in December with one official explaining that the administration continually reviews and thoroughly evaluates the effectiveness of all United States foreign assistance to ensure that funds go towards activities that further U.S. foreign policy and also further our national security interests, like any administration would.
In September 2018, the administration canceled the $300 million in military aid to Pakistan because it was not meeting its counter terrorism obligations, you didn’t hear about any of that from my Democratic colleagues, the House managers.
Sekulow further noted that two of the Democrats’ witnesses said during their impeachment investigation that the Trump administration has withheld aid from numerous countries across the world for a wide variety of reasons.

“Manager Crow told you that the president’s Ukraine policy was not strong against Russia, noting that we help our partner fight Russia over there so we don’t have to fight Russia here, our friends on the frontlines in trenches and with sneakers and this was following the Russians invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the United States has stood by Ukraine, those are your words,” Sekulow continued. “While it’s true that the United States has stood by Ukraine since the invasion of 2014, only one president since then took a very concrete step, some of you supported it, and that step included actually providing Ukraine with lethal weapons including javelin missiles. That’s what President Trump did.”

“Here’s what Ambassador Taylor said that you didn’t hear in the 23 hours, you didn’t hear this, ‘javelin missiles are serious weapons, they will kill Russian tanks,'” Sekulow continued. “Ambassador Yovanovitch agreed stating, that Ukraine policy under President Trump actually got stronger, stronger than it was under President Obama.”

White House counsel Pat Cipollone noted that Trump’s defense team was going to go in-depth next week in examining evidence that Democrats intentionally did not present to the American public during there three days in front of the Senate.

“They’ve come here today and they’ve basically said, ‘Let’s cancel an election over a meeting with the Ukraine,’” Cipollone said. “It would be a completely irresponsible abuse of power to do what they’re asking you to do: to stop an election, to interfere in an election and to remove the president of the United States from the ballot.”

“They’re asking you to remove @realdonaldtrump from the ballot in an election that’s occurring in approximately nine months.” – Pat Cipollone

Americans don't want Democrats to invalidate the will of the people!pic.twitter.com/F2SIRlwdg3

— Ronna McDaniel (@gopchairwoman) January 25, 2020

[soonernvolved]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7929055/Senators-baffled-half-spectator-gallery-impeachment-trial.html

The Senate spectator gallery was unexpectedly half-empty throughout the first week of President Donald Trump’s historic impeachment trial.

The Senate trial began on January 16 after Trump was impeached in the House on two articles stemming from accusations that he withheld military aid money from US ally Ukraine until they conducted an investigation into presidential hopeful Joe Biden.

Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma told New York Post: ‘I’m really surprised at that because this is kind of historic and I would think this would be an opportunity for people to get in there regardless of whose side you are on.’

www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-trial-01-24-20/h_8723be3af4a5f6feac5e39c4001d7dc8

During the break, GOP Sen. Mike Braun walked by his neighbor, Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, and told him, “I think we’ve got another six hours.”

Romney looked genuinely surprised and overwhelmed. “Oh jeez,” he said, shaking his head. “No one’s watching!”

A few seconds later, GOP Sen. Tim Scott walked by and said something to Romney, who responded, “I’m dying, I’m dying!” He then opened up a bag of what looked like peanuts, then walked over to talk to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

[soonernvolved]

Tim Kaine, Crooked Hillary’s vice presidential running mate in 2016, recounted the phone call he had with Barack Obama in an episode of “Hillary” which is a documentary series that will be released on Hulu in early March.

The documentary, which chronicles Hillary’s rise in DC, will premiere at the Sundance Festival Saturday night with Hillary Clinton in attendance.

NBC reported:

www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/obama-called-trump-fascist-during-phone-call-sen-kaine-says-n1122316

President Barack Obama called Donald Trump a “fascist” in a phone conversation with Sen. Tim Kaine during the 2016 presidential election, the Virginia lawmaker says in a video clip featured in an upcoming documentary about Hillary Clinton.

Kaine, Clinton’s vice presidential running mate on the Democratic ticket, recounts the call during an exchange with Clinton that was caught on camera in 2016. Kaine’s wife, Anne Holton, was also present.

“President Obama called me last night and said, ‘Tim, remember, this is no time to be a purist. You’ve got to keep a fascist out of the White House,'” Kaine says before adding with a laugh that Obama “knows me and he knows that I could tend to err.”

“I echo that sentiment,” Clinton replies to Kaine, nodding her head. “But that’s really — the weight of our responsibility is so huge,” Hillary said.

[soonernvolved]

Senator Hawley is not playing around:

Politico reported that Hawley will also seek communications between the whistleblower (Eric Ciaramella) and Schiff’s staffers as well as ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony which is still under seal.

www.politico.com/news/2020/01/25/josh-hawley-biden-schiff-subpoena-votes-104610

The Missouri Republican is preparing to file subpoena requests for witnesses and documents that Democrats and Republicans alike won’t want to vote on. Hawley’s strategy harmonizes with plans from GOP Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky to force votes to hear from Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son who was on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Hawley would also seek communications among the whistleblower, Schiff and his staff, transcripts of Atkinson’s congressional testimony, communications between the House impeachment managers and Democratic presidential candidates as well as documents related to Biden’s drive to oust former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Shokin was deeply unpopular with Western officials, who viewed him as corrupt.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/msnbc-anchor-ari-melber-democrats-failed-to-land-case-not-overwhelming-evidence

MSNBC Anchor Ari Melber: Democrats Failed To ‘Land’ Case, Not ‘Overwhelming’ Evidence

MSNBC anchor Ari Melber had harsh words on Friday for House Democrats’ impeachment case against President Donald Trump, saying that the House managers failed to “land” their case on one of the articles of impeachment and that there was not an “overwhelming” case.

“As we are now here with a few hours left and always ready to watch how the evidence unfolds, I do not see an overwhelming case and overwhelming evidence by these Democrats to support convicting on obstructing Congress,” Melber said.


“And I’ll tell you why,” Melber continued. “This is important, because each of these are independent. Obviously, like any trial, one would be enough, one conviction would be enough – that would potentially remove a president, but on the obstruction of Congress, what the Democrats are arguing is that basically something that began three months before they actually voted to impeach should now be resolved by the removal of the president.”

“And in every other case, including Nixon, we know the rule has been, the president is allowed to fight within the law, is allowed to deny and yes ‘defy’ all the way up and until the Supreme Court, which takes often more than a year,” Melber continued. “So, is there enough evidence to support the immediate removal of the president? … I haven’t seen them land that, I don’t see the Democrats having provided enough evidence yet to convict on article two.”

WATCH:

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/impeachment-witness-trump-critic-trump-trial-defense-brilliant-sophisticated-effective

Impeachment Witness, Trump Critic: Trump Trial Defense ‘Brilliant,’ ‘Sophisticated,’ ‘Effective’

Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University Jonathan Turley, a Trump critic who was widely praised for his non-partisan testimony during House Democrats’ impeachment hearings, praised Trump’s legal team on Saturday over their performance in defending the president.

“The House took a lot of hits below the waterline today,” Turley wrote on Twitter. “These were powerful points that gave ample foundation for senators to support acquittal without agreeing with the Dershowitz theory or the suggestion that everything was ‘perfect.’ I liked the low key, fact-based argument.”


“The White House did a particularly good job explaining its position on refusing discovery and also the unfair process,” Turley continued. “Moreover, it was a brilliant decision to limit the opening to a few hours. The House subjected the Senate to mind-numbing repetition for 22 hours.”

“By giving up much of the first day, the White House gave a concise opening, relieved the jury, and pushed the main argument to Monday with a larger television audience,” Turley concluded. “It was a sophisticated and effective strategy that paid off. A very strong start to their case.”

Earlier this week, Turley said that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), one of the Democrats’ impeachment managers, made a “huge blunder” in delivering Democrats’ case.

One of the things you teach law students is that when you make arguments to juries, make sure you don’t insult the jury,” Turley said. “That is, you don’t want to make statements that make them feel stupid or ascribe any bad motivations to them, and if there was one major blunder during the argument it was Jerry Nadler, who got ahead of the skis a bit and said that the Senate could be engaged in a cover up, and when he said that, people on the floor recounted later that there was sort of a hush, a reaction from the Senators.”

“This is not the place for that,” Turley continued. “And what was notable was that it was Lisa Murkowski, one of the Senators they are trying to get, who was the first to object outside the chambers and said that she was deeply insulted. You know, this is not just the most deliberative body, it’s the most defensive body, and if you actually call them traitors or conspirators in a cover up, it’s more likely that they’re going to join together than break apart.”

Turley was referring to Nadler saying, “If you vote to block this witness or any evidence, it can only be because you do not want the American people to hear the evidence, that you do not want a fair trial, and that you are complicit in President Trump’s efforts to hide misconduct and the truth from the American people.”

“The question is if the Senate will be complicit in the president’s crimes by covering them up,” Nadler added. “Any senator who votes against any relevant testimony shows that he and she are part of the cover up. What other possible reason is there to prohibit a relevant witness to testify here?”

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/25/chris-murphy-possible-some-democrats-vote-acquit-trump/amp/

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said Saturday it is “certainly possible” some Senate Democrats will vote to acquit President Donald Trump when the Senate impeachment trial concludes.

The Connecticut Democrat said that the Senate Democrat conference will likely vote for additional witnesses; however, he added that he cannot guarantee all Democrats will vote to convict the president.

Sen. Murphy said Saturday morning:

I don’t have any reason to think there are Democrats that aren’t with us on procedural votes. It’s certainly possible there are Democrats that are going to vote no on one of the articles, two of the articles. And I don’t have a sense where everybody is on the articles. We haven’t talked about it.

“Schumer may know, but nobody has done public or private whipping on this,” he added.

The mainstream media have focused on the possibility of Senate Republicans voting for allowing additional witnesses to testify during the impeachment trial, although it remains possible that some Senate Democrats will end up voting to acquit the president after the trial wraps up.

Politico suggested Saturday that Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) are the most likely Democrats to consider voting to acquit the president.

Several Senate Republicans have suggested that as many as three Senate Democrats may vote to clear Trump.

Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) said in December, “I think we might have a couple. I don’t want to speculate on who — obviously that puts too much pressure on them — but I really think we have people on both sides that are trying to get to a reasonable, nonpartisan answer.”

Other Senate Democrats, such as Gary Peters (D-MI) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), may also vote to acquit the president.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), a member of Senate Republican leadership, said in December that “there are a couple of Democrats who are thinking about” voting to acquit Trump of wrongdoing.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/25/barrasso-schiff-lost-credibility-significantly-when-evidence-was-presented/amp/



Saturday during an appearance on the Fox News Channel following the day’s proceedings of the White House presenting a case in the Senate against impeachment, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) offered his reaction.

According to Barrasso, Schiff was the big loser of the day, given his willingness to exaggerate specific details of the case.

“Now we are starting to hear the rest of the story,” Barrasso said. “What we see coming out is evidence I think undermined the Democrat case and undermined Congressman Schiff’s credibility. I think he lost credibility significantly this morning as the evidence was presented.”

The Wyoming Republican cited the call transcript between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky being read in the proceedings, followed by lead House manager Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) version read during the House proceeding, which he said caused a visible reaction from Schiff and other members of the U.S. Senate.

He is 100% partisan,” he added. “He thinks the 2016 election was fixed and unfair. He also said the 2020 election is going to be unfair because he doesn’t trust the American voters. He wants to be the judge, the jury, the executioner. He wants to take Donald Trump not just out of office but his name off the ballot. I think he is trying to influence the upcoming election, just as much as the last one and what I would expect from a very partisan process that was rushed, that basically was what I thought was a political stunt. And then holding the articles for 33 days before sending them to the Senate. And that’s what you get when you have a sloppy, rushed process that is 100% partisan.”

[soonernvolved]

Republican Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Mike Braun (R-IN) joined Judge Jeanine Pirro on Saturday night following the first two hours of President Trump’s Defense Team holding court in the US Senate earlier this morning.

Both Senators were very complementary of the President’s Counsel and their excellent arguments defending President Trump on Saturday morning.

Judge Jeanine then asked the two Republicans about Adam Schiff’s closing arguments and his “head on a pike” threat he threw out to Republican senators.

Senator Braun responded: I don’t know what James saw but when Adam Schiff in his closing arguments kind of grew melodramatic invoking Lincoln and then couldn’t resist coming out with, hey what do you think of the fact that if you go against the president your head might end up on a pike? To me I couldn’t believe he said it and there was a collective groan among everyone on our side and I looked over at the other side of the aisle and they didn’t groan but they were shocked by that as well.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/trump-defenders-highlight-testimony-that-schiff-is-allegedly-covering-up-that-damages-his-case

Trump Defenders Highlight Testimony That Schiff Is Allegedly Covering Up That Damages His Case

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is allegedly engaged in covering up the testimony of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson because his testimony undermines the Democrats’ entire impeachment case, says Trump’s legal team and Republican members of Congress.


Schiff and other House impeachment managers have repeatedly talked about 17 witnesses that they interviewed during the House’s secret depositions, but they are not talking about the 18th witness that they interviewed, which is allegedly Atkinson.

Schiff reportedly designated Atkinson’s testimony as a “briefing,” which allowed him to make what Atkinson said classified and makes it so Republicans in the Senate cannot use what he said in their defense of the president.

“The potentially exculpatory evidence for Mr. Trump has remained classified and is not part of the record for the impeachment trial,” The Washington Times reported. “Because it remains classified, only members of the intelligence committee have seen it and Mr. Trump’s legal team is denied a copy.”

“Mr. Atkinson’s briefing for House lawmakers covered the origins of the whistleblower complaint that led to the two articles of impeachment,” The Times added. “Mr. Trump’s supporters charge that the whistleblower was part of a scheme to take down the president and that the complaint was coordinated by Mr. Schiff, chairman of the intelligence committee and the lead House impeachment manager prosecuting the case.”


Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) told The Times that Schiff isn’t releasing the testimony because it’s damaging to Schiff and the whistleblower, and raises serious credibility issues.

“It addresses the issue about contacts between Schiff, his staff, and the whistleblower, and what the inspector general knows about that,” Ratcliff added. “So those are material facts that should be talked about, but Adam Schiff has prevented that.”

Boost has Super-Reliable, Super Fast Network so You Can Stay Connected Anywhere
Get 4 Samsung Galaxy phones when you make the switch to Boost’s super reliable, super-fast nationwide network
Ad By Boost Mobile
See More


Trump attorney Jenna Ellis raised the issue again late this week during an interview on Fox News, saying, “Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes has also come forward and said there is an active investigation from Republicans into the IG Michael Atkinson because of his testimony and why there was apparently, and he couldn’t disclose the confidential and classified information at this point, but said that was very damaging to Adam Schiff’s case.”

“And so why is this not being declassified?” Ellis added. “Why are Democrats covering this up?”

WATCH:

In a separate interview with Sara Carter this week, Rep. Nunes also brought up the issue, saying that the transcript needs to be released, “and the fact that the Democrats won’t release the transcript of us interviewing the Inspector General, Atkinson, that brought this scam forward – everyone needs to see that testimony, and the reason that it’s not being released is because it’s very damaging, not only to the whistleblower, but also to Atkinson himself,” Nunes said, adding, “this testimony is really bad and … the Republicans have an active investigation into Atkinson.”

On December 9, Ratcliffe highlighted some of what was in the transcript during one of the Democrats’ impeachment hearings on the Intelligence Committee.

WATCH:



Full transcript of Rep. John Ratcliffe’s (R-TX) remarks on December 9, 2019, on the classified testimony of Intelligence Community inspector general Michael Atkinson:

RATCLIFFE: Thank the Chairman. The 299-page Democratic majority report mentions the intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson on pages 26, 33, 138, 140, and 143. Mr. Goldman, you were present for the October 4, 2019, transcribed interview of the Inspector General Michael Atkinson, correct?

GOLDMAN: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: On pages 53 to 73 of that transcribed interview, the Inspector General’s testimony confirms the following: That the whistleblower made statements to the Inspector General under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct; that the whistleblower first made statements in writing under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. The whistleblower then made statements under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct in his or her verbal responses to the Inspector General’s investigative team.

Because of the whistleblower’s statements in writing and verbally to the Inspector General that were neither true, correct, or accurate, pages 53 to 73 of that sworn testimony revealed that the Inspector General was not able to answer any questions, none, from me about the whistleblower’s contact or communication with Chairman Schiff’s staff of which Mr. Goldman is a member.

Mr. Castor, do you remember anywhere in this 299-page report that makes reference to the fact that when the whistleblower started this inquiry, he or she did so by making statements under penalty of perjury that were neither true or correct in writing and then did so again verbally?

CASTOR: I don’t remember that.

RATCLIFFE: After the Inspector General testified on October 4, and after media reports revealed that the whistleblower and Chairman Schiff did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with one another, the whistleblower contacted the Inspector General to explain why he or she made statements under penalty of perjury in writing and verbally that were not true, correct, and accurate.

Mr. Castor, is that communication from the whistleblower, from the whistleblower to the Inspector General to explain prior inconsistent statements reflected anywhere in the 299-page report?

CASTOR: No.

RATCLIFFE: On October 2, Chairman Schiff’s spokesman, Patrick Boland, acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistleblower’s accusations against the President had been disclosed to the House Intelligence staff and shared with Chairman Schiff.

Mr. Castor, is that disclosure and Mr. Boland’s admission of that disclosure anywhere in this report?

CASTOR: I don’t remember seeing it.

RATCLIFFE: It’s not. I think all Members of Congress should be held accountable during this impeachment process, and to that end, if I have made any false statements about the whistleblower or the Inspector General’s testimony today, then I should be held accountable. The way to do that would be to release the Inspector General’s testimony or even just pages 53 to 73.

I would add that there’s nothing in those pages that would in any way identify or place at risk the whistleblower’s identity, nor would it reveal any information that in any way relates to, much less jeopardizes, national security.

Look, maybe there’s a believable explanation for why the whistleblower made statements that weren’t true or accurate about his contact or her contact with Chairman Schiff in writing and then again verbally.

Maybe there’s a good explanation for why the words Congress or congressional committee was confusing or not clear to the whistleblower.

Maybe there’s a good explanation for why the whistleblower also misled the Inspector General in writing on August 12 by stating, ‘I reserve the option to exercise my legal right to contact the committees directly’, when the whistleblower had, in fact, already contacted Chairman Schiff’s committee 2 weeks before he or she wrote that.

Maybe there’s a believable reason why Chairman Schiff was not initially truthful about his staff’s communications with the whistleblower.

Maybe there’s a good reason that explains all of these statements in writing and verbally that just weren’t true and correct. Maybe there is.

But there is no good reason for voting to impeach and remove from office an American President without allowing a single question to be asked of a single witness to get an explanation for why the Inspector General was not told the truth about contacts between the whistleblower and Chairman Schiff.

The bottom line is we should all be held accountable, and next November, every Member of the House will be asked this question: Did you vote to impeach the President without allowing any investigation into why the whistleblower that started it all did so by making statements in writing and verbally under penalty of perjury that were not true? Democrats may not care if that question ever gets answered, but the voters will. I yield back.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/01/25/fact-check-ap-says-biden-getting-ukrainian-prosecutor-fired-to-protect-hunter-is-false-narrative/

The Associated Press (AP) described the matter of Joe Biden’s leveraging of U.S. foreign aid to pressure Ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating corruption at Burisma — a Ukrainian energy company upon whose board of directors Hunter Biden sat — in order to protect his second son as a “false narrative.”

The AP echoed similar news media outlets’ mischaracterization of the above-mentioned event, including the New York Times, Snopes, NPR, USA Today, Vox, and the Washington Post.


In a column identifying differing perceptions of political goings on being related to varying news media consumption patterns, the AP dismisses Joe Biden’s admission that he threatened to withhold U.S. foreign aid from Ukraine if Ukrainian officials did not fire then-prosecutor Viktor Shokin.

The AP claimed, “[T]hose who followed a conservative media diet were much more likely to believe the false narrative that former Vice President Joe Biden called for a Ukrainian prosecutor’s removal to protect his son from being investigated.”

In January 2018, Joe Biden joined a discussion panel at the Council on Foreign Relations and admitted his pressuring of Ukraine to terminate Viktor Shokin in his former capacity as vice president and “point person” on Ukraine (transcript via RealClearPolitics):

And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.

(Laughter.)

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

Well, there’s still—so they made some genuine substantial changes institutionally and with people. But one of the three institutions, there’s now some backsliding.

Despite having no academic or professional background in energy or natural gas, Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board of directors — where he was paid $83,000 per month — weeks after his father was announced “point person” on U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/25/brooks-still-a-slightly-weak-case-on-why-trump-should-be-removed/

On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks stated that he thinks the House impeachment managers have made a strong case “on proving that Trump did it” but still have a “slightly weak case” on why the president should be removed from office.

Brooks stated, “I would give them an A on proving that Trump did it. I think the evidence was overwhelming before walking in, but they presented it clearly. I would give them a lower grade on, should he be removed from office? And to me, for doubting Republicans, if there are any, that’s the more important argument to make. I thought they hit that less hard, and, frankly, less well. All my friends loved Adam Schiff’s closing comments last night. I was a little less impressed. I mean, the two main arguments were — that’s when he directly addressed why this is worth removing. And it was, well, Trump believed Giuliani, and not his own intelligence agencies, and he did it out of self-interest. That strikes me as true, not a big crime. And then he said, you can’t trust Trump in the 2020 election, when China may interfere. But you can’t impeach for something that hasn’t already happened. And so I think the removal part is still a slightly weak case.”

[soonernvolved]

Now, even soap operas have higher ratings than the Impeachment coverage lol :

thefederalist.com/2020/01/25/impeachment-gets-worse-ratings-than-soap-operas/

Impeachment Gets Worse Ratings Than Soap Operas
Soap operas are earning more viewers than the steadily over-hyped impeachment trial.
JANUARY 25, 2020 By Tristan Justice
More people would rather watch the predictable, fake melodrama offered by soap operas than the predictable, fake melodrama currently being peddled by the Democrats.

According to Nielsen data, just over four million people across the big three broadcast networks of CBS, ABC, and NBC tuned into the Democrats’ opening arguments in President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday. In contrast, nearly 11 million continued watching soap operas, such as “The Young & The Restless,” “The Bold & The Beautiful,” “General Hospital,” and “Days of Our Lives.”

Wednesday’s ratings were a decline from Tuesday’s, where the first day of the trial garnered an average of 5.1 million viewers across the three networks.

Cable news networks added 4.8 million viewers on Wednesday, which marked a decline from Tuesday, where 6 million people watched on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.

Even those living in Washington D.C. have been ignoring the trial. According to an InstaPoll from Fox 5, 63 percent of DCers reported not having watched any of the trial.

This week’s numbers echo the same ratings that the House impeachment hearings earned last fall, when only an estimated 13.8 million people watched the first public impeachment hearing by the House Intelligence Committee across all 10 networks. These values represent a stark difference from the 20 million people who watched Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony during his confirmation hearing in the fall of 2018.

The lack of viewership for the Senate impeachment trial illustrates a public understanding of what a show trial the proceedings have become. In other words, Americans recognize the difference between performative actions full of useless bravado and events where major outcomes may result, such as the Kavanaugh hearings.

Democrats need at least 20 Republican senators to vote in favor of a guilty verdict, an event which is certain not to happen, given public support for impeachment has remained underwater for more than a month, according to Real Clear Politics’ latest aggregate of polls.