James Comey

[soonernvolved]

5:11 PM: House managers asked if the whistleblower worked for Biden given the IG report about “political bias.”

Schiff plays a slide of Republicans (Grassley, Romney, Burr, Nunes) saying whistleblowers should be protected, says it has been a bipartisan priority. Schiff says he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is and the committee staff did not write the complaint or coach the whistleblower on what to put into the complaint.

5:07 PM: Blumental asks Trump’s team if anyone in the White House or outside the White House that publication of Bolton’s book would be politically problematic for the president.

Philbin says nobody told them it would be problematic.

5:05 PM: Philbin detailing all of the mainstream media reports about Burisma’s shadiness after being asked when the U.S. developed concerns about Burisma and corruption. Philbin notes that everyone who has testified said that there was at least an appearance of a conflict of interest.

[soonernvolved]

www.rollcall.com/news/congress/impeachment-news-roundup-jan-29

During a break in the trial, Sen. Rand Paul could be seen on the Senate floor seeking assurances that he will not be blocked from asking a question. The Kentucky Republican appeared less than pleased with Secretary of the Majority Laura Dove. “I don’t want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition,” Paul said loud enough to be audible from the galleries above the chamber. “If I have to fight for recognition, I will.“

[soonernvolved]

On Tuesday fired Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin filed an official complaint against Joe Biden for interference in Ukraine’s legal proceedings.

French news Les Crisis reported:

www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/

Today we present you this exclusive document: the complaint of former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin against Joe Biden for interference in the legal proceedings of Ukraine – which incidentally cites our UkraineGate investigation …



To the interim director of the National Bureau of Investigation

COMPLAINT [against Joe Biden]

On the commission of a criminal offense

(under article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine)

I have read and understood Article 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the liability provided for in Article 383 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Slanderous denunciation of an offense”.

Shokin V.M. (signature).

During the period 2014-2016, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine was conducting a preliminary investigation into a series of serious crimes committed by the former Minister of Ecology of Ukraine Mykola Zlotchevsky and by the managers of the company “Burisma Holding Limited “(Cyprus), the board of directors of which included, among others, Hunter Biden, son of Joseph Biden, then vice-president of the United States of America.

The investigation into the above-mentioned crimes was carried out in strict accordance with Criminal Law and was under my personal control as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

Owing to my firm position on the above-mentioned cases regarding their prompt and objective investigation, which should have resulted in the arrest and the indictment of the guilty parties, Joseph Biden developed a firmly hostile attitude towards me which led him to express in private conversations with senior Ukrainian officials, as well as in his public speeches, a categorical request for my immediate dismissal from the post of Attorney General of Ukraine in exchange for the sum of US $ 1 billion in as a financial guarantee from the United States for the benefit of Ukraine.

The facts I have described above are confirmed, among other things, by the official interview of Joseph Biden published in the media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHoXh42BraI), where he declares that Ukraine will not receive money if I remain in my post as Attorney General.

Throughout the last months of 2015 and the first months of 2016 Joseph Biden, taking advantage of his position, came several times on official visits to Ukraine in order to negotiate with the leaders of the country my eviction and, consequently, the closing of the objective investigation into the offenses committed by persons associated with the company “Burisma Holding Limited” (Cyprus), including the son of the aforementioned US official.

Due to continued pressure from the Vice President of the United States Joseph Biden to oust me from the job by blackmailing the allocation of financial assistance, I, as the man who places the State interests above my personal interests, I agreed to abandon the post of Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

After my resignation caused by illegal pressure, no active investigation into the offenses concerning the company “Burisma Holding Limited” (Cyprus) was carried out and, therefore, the persons implicated in these offenses were not identified, nor arrested or charged.

According to the conclusions of the International Law Association of 18.04.2017, made by the doctor of law, Professor O.O. Merezhko, at the time vice-president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the request of the Vice-President of the United States Joseph Biden concerning my ousting from the post of the Attorney General of Ukraine as a condition for the granting of financial (economic) assistance is qualified as pressure, which represents interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine on the part of a foreign power in violation of one of the principles of international law.

Moreover, the facts of pressure on me as Prosecutor General of Ukraine from Joseph Biden in the circumstances described above are confirmed by an independent journalistic investigation under the name “UkraineGate” conducted and published by the French online media “Les-Crises.fr” available at this link ukrainegate.info/part-2-not-so-dormant-investigations/

[soonernvolved]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has the votes to block new witnesses and the impeachment trial should be over by the weekend, according to ABC News.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/witnesses-trump-impeachment-trial-end-quickly-gop-sources/story?id=68639038&cid=social_twitter_abcn

After more than 90 questions and 8 hours of debate on Wednesday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated to Republican senators he believes he now has the votes to defeat any Democratic motion that the Senate consider new witnesses when the Senate decides that question on Friday, according to two GOP sources. That would allow him to skip to the final stages of the trial, the sources said.

Multiple Republicans tell ABC News they hope to move quickly to acquit the president within the next two days, ahead of his State of the Union address on Tuesday.

[soonernvolved]

Carter Page suing the DNC over the debunked Steele Dossier:

amp.dailycaller.com/2020/01/30/carter-page-sues-dnc-steele-dossier

Carter Page has taken his first legal action in the wake of a Justice Department inspector general’s report on FBI abuse of the FISA process.
The former Trump campaign aide sued the DNC and its law firm Thursday over their role in commissioning and disseminating the Steele dossier.
The DNC, through its lawyers at Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which in turn hired dossier author Christopher Steele.
Page said he received death threats and lost business over the “falsehoods” in the dossier.
Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Democratic National Committee and the law firm that commissioned the infamous Steele dossier, and his lawyer suggests there is more litigation to come.

In the lawsuit, Page accuses the DNC and its law firm, Perkins Coie, of disseminating “falsehoods” in the dossier through the media, leading to death threats and a loss of income for the former Trump aide.

[soonernvolved]

Got to love the hypocrisy here:

[soonernvolved]

Impeachment manager Adam Schiff lost it when over a dozen senators asked him his top aide Sean Misko and his coordination with the whistleblower to “take out” Trump.

Several senators on Thursday asked Schiff about his top aide Sean Misko plotting with his NatSec-crony-turned-whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to “take out” Trump in January of 2017.

The senators were referring to Paul Sperry’s explosive investigative report revealing Eric Ciaramella plotted with Schiff’s aide Sean Misko to “take out” Trump in January of 2017.

Impeachment manager Adam Schiff has TWO aides, Sean Misko and Abigail Grace who worked with the whistleblower Eric Ciaramella at the National Security Council and Republican Senators asked about their role in plotting to remove Trump.

Schiff hired Eric Ciaramella’s NatSec crony Sean Misko ONE DAY after President Trump’s July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and now he’s refusing to answer questions about their coordination.

Schiff became enraged and refused to answer the question!

Schiff was visibly nervous as he lashed out at the senators for daring to ask him about his involvement in the latest coup attempt.

This question refers to allegation in a newspaper article which are circulating smears on my staff and ask me to respond to those smears. I will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever,” Schiff said.

Instead of answering the question, Schiff accused senators of endangering Eric Ciaramella.

WATCH:

Shortly after Schiff’s crazy rant, President Trump retweeted Paul Sperry’s explosive report on Schiff’s aide Sean Misko and his relationship with Eric Ciaramella.

Trump also retweeted Senator Rand Paul’s question about Eric Ciaramella after it was rejected by Justice Roberts.

[soonernvolved]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went on an insane rant Thursday as impeachment imploded in the senate.

President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Pelosi to have a meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Pelosi if Trump will be “chastened” knowing “congress is watching him” or “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Pelosi said.

WATCH:

[soonernvolved]

Pat Cipollone: If you’re going to say that the votes of the American people are going to be disallowed, that all of the ballots need to be torn up. Then at the very least you need to be accountable to your own district for that decision and now they are. And now they are. And if the American people decide. If they are allowed to vote. If the American people decide, that they don’t like what’s happened here, that they don’t like the constitutional violations that have happened, that they don’t like the attack on a successful president, for purely partisan political purposes. Then they can do something and they can throw them out. That’s why a vote’s important.

[soonernvolved]

It’s bad when CNN & Wolf Blitzer way Democrats are in trouble:

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/30/gop-senators-ask-schiff-why-he-hired-colleague-of-alleged-whistleblower-a-day-after-trump-zelensky-call/amp/

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) and other Republican senators asked lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) during the Senate impeachment trial Thursday why his committee hired Sean Misko, a former National Security Council staffer who was reportedly close to the alleged whistleblower, a day after the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Chief Justice John Roberts said, reading the question submitted by Johnson and others:

Recent reporting described two NSC staff holdovers from the Obama administration attending an all-hands meeting of NSC staff held about two weeks into the Trump administration and talking loudly enough to be overheard, saying, ‘We need to do everything we can to take out the president.

On July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee hired one of those individuals, Sean Misko. The report further describes relationships between Misko, Lt. Col. Vindman, and an individual alleged as the whistleblower. Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky, and what role has he played throughout your committee’s investigation?

Schiff refused to answer any part of the question, claiming it was an attempt to smear his staff and out the whistleblower — whose identity he also claims he does not know.

Schiff did say:

First of all, there have been a lot of attacks on my staff, and as I said when this issue came up earlier, I’m appalled at some of the smearing of some of the professional people that work for the intelligence committee.

Now this question refers to allegations in a newspaper article which are circulating smears on my staff and ask me to respond to those smears and I will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever. Nor will I share any information that I believe could or could not lead to the identification of the whistleblower.

He said it was “disgraceful” that the article was being used to “smear” his staff. He again claimed he did not know who the “whistleblower” was, and added, “It should be every one of us.”

Johnson’s question referred to a recent RealClearInvestigations report in which Misko and the alleged whistleblower, CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, were overheard expressing anger over Trump’s new “America First” foreign policy.

According to the report, two former co-workers said they overheard Ciaramella and Misko, close friends and Democrats, discussing how to “take out,” or remove, the new president from office within days of Trump’s inauguration.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/31/yes-trumps-acquittal-is-real-and-its-spectacular/


Yes, Trump’s Acquittal Is Real, And It’s Spectacular
JANUARY 31, 2020 By David Marcus
The most amazing thing about Democrats and their allies in the media is that they never actually lose. Any time it seems like they lose, it’s actually the result of cheating and chicanery.

Hillary Clinton didn’t lose 2016, the Russians interfered and the Electoral College is racist. Stacy Abrams didn’t lose in Georgia, the election was stolen. And sure enough, the calls have already come out to say that House Democrats aren’t really going to lose the impeachment trial, because without additional witnesses the trial isn’t legitimate and the acquittal isn’t real.


Not this time. Mitch McConnell, President Trump’s legal team, and the GOP made fools of the Democrats and drank their milkshake. But this will not stop the aggrieved cackling heads from claiming this is all somehow fake. Take a gander at the sad-sack gaslighting below.

This is the behavior of toddlers told they won’t be stopping for ice cream. “It’s not fair.” Let’s break down this tremendously stupid argument. It was perfectly fair for Democrats to set all the rules in the House impeachment process. They held secret testimony, and then they held hearings with no GOP witnesses. Then they held hearings where maybe the White House could have witnesses, at Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler’s discretion, but those witnesses couldn’t have legal counsel.

Then instead of subpoenaing the witnesses they wanted like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, the Democrats said, “Oh my goodness, there’s no time for that, this is an emergency, we have to impeach Trump RIGHT NOW!” Even without those witnesses. At that point, they sat on the articles of impeachment for weeks hoping for some miracle to save their hopeless case. And by the way, if the acquittal isn’t legitimate because we didn’t hear from Bolton, how on earth is the impeachment itself legitimate?

The speed with which coordinated Democratic talking points infect the news media represents some of the most efficient propaganda the nation has ever seen. Efficient, but not effective. Only those already in the pews of the Church of Orange Man Bad are buying this latest nonsense argument. The U.S. Senate decides what an impeachment trial looks like, and whatever they decide is by definition legitimate.

Now that this unbelievable waste of five months inflicted on the American people in an attempt to undermine their democratic rights is coming to an end, the takeaway is not that Republicans acted unfairly, it’s that Democrats predictably got their rear ends kicked. Those same Democrats were warned for months that this was the only outcome their doomed impeachment could lead to, but nonetheless they persisted, and made fools of themselves.

Conservatives today should be celebrating and mocking a media that still doesn’t understand how wrong it constantly is and why. The leftist establishment took their best shot at President Trump and today it glances harmlessly off his chin. Make no mistake: Donald Trump’s acquittal is real, and it is spectacular.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/31/when-they-cant-win-by-the-rules-impeachment-activists-get-in-senators-faces/

IMPEACHMENT
When They Can’t Win By The Rules, Impeachment Activists Get In Senators’ Faces
As long as Trump remains president, activists will continue to disrupt normal political processes, swarming buildings and storming hearings, claiming the system is corrupt, that there is a cover-up, and that the other side is cheating.
Krystina Skurk
By Krystina Skurk
JANUARY 31, 2020
“A massive crowd has filled the Hart Senate Atrium to demand witnesses, documents, and justice in the Senate removal trial of Donald Trump,” reads the Remove Trump #SwarmTheSenate Twitter page. The feed includes a video of hundreds quietly milling around the marble floors of the Senate office building. They hold no signs, presumably for security reasons, but many wear anti-Trump shirts, hats, and orange “Out Now” stickers.

The protest was made up of a coalition of leftist advocacy groups, aiming to pressure senators into allowing witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. The Center for Popular Democracy Action, Public Citizen, the Poor People’s Campaign, Women’s March, and other activist groups organized the event, according to CommonDreams.org.


CPD Action posted photos of the swarm and tweeted, “Incredible images out of DC where thousands are demanding [an] end to the Senate’s sham trial and a beginning to what every trial must include: witnesses and documents.”

After the groups swarmed the Hart Senate building, they made their way to the Capitol. There the protest went from silent to raucous. Protesters wielded signs and banners, megaphones, drums, and guitars. Some wore masks or costumes, and one man was even on stilts.

Forty-one protesters were arrested, some after sitting on the Capitol steps in an act of civil disobedience, The Hill reported. A witness at the event said the protesters had been warned the steps were off limits, but she believed this was an unreasonable restriction.




“The Republicans are rigging this trial, and the one force that could actually change this equation is the power of the people coming out in the streets and demanding witnesses, demanding evidence, and demanding conviction and removal,” Rafael Kadaris, a protester with RefuseFacism.org, stated.

Democrats Won’t Be Satisfied With Docs and Witnesses
Even if the Senate calls witnesses, would that satisfy the protesters who swarmed the Senate Jan. 29? Are witnesses and documents what they really want? Most know the answer is no. Trump’s detractors will only be happy with his removal. No trial could be fair, just, or long enough to convince activists on the left of Trump’s innocence.

The Heritage Foundation’s Thomas Jipping points out there are plenty of documents and witnesses already on the record. At the beginning of the Senate trial, the entire House record, which runs more than 25,000 pages, was entered into evidence.

Even if the Senate chooses not to call additional witnesses, senators have the option of combing through “the House’s 107-page trial brief and statement of material facts; Trump’s 110-page trial memorandum; 45 pages of opinions from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel; nearly 40 hours of presentation by the House managers and Trump’s team; and the answers of both parties to senators’ questions,” Jipping says.


As for those witnesses who refused to testify, the House can try to compel that testimony, and they chose not to. They could have gone to the courts to get their subpoenas enforced, but instead they let the matter go and in one case even withdrew the subpoena. Why? They were in a hurry.

According to The Guardian, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered articles of impeachment to be drafted after only two months of investigating. Yet at the time, no leftist activists were claiming the proceedings were a sham or that a cover-up was underfoot.



Chris Gagin recently wrote in The Hill, “Without any witnesses, the president and Senate Republicans up for reelection become vulnerable to claims of a sham trial or, even far worse, an orchestrated cover-up rooted in a fear of the truth.” While this might be true, even if the Senate votes for witnesses, Democrats and activists will still make these claims.

Corruption Means We’re Not Getting Our Way

Let’s not forget that giving in to demands to re-open Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and then to open another FBI investigation into allegations of sexual assault did not satisfy his detractors. The demands for “witnesses and documents” on Wednesday are reminiscent of demands for the same in Kavanaugh’s hearing.

According to Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino in their book “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court,” the Senate Judiciary Committee was provided millions of pages of documents relating to Kavanaugh’s career. By comparison, Justice Elena Kagan only provided 173,000 pages of paperwork, and Justice Neil Gorsuch provided 182,000 pages.

Kavanaugh’s detractors didn’t really care about paperwork, and neither do Trump’s. These demands are a means of delay, distraction, and dissension. The left can’t win by the rules of the game, an election in Trump’s case or a confirmation hearing in Kavanaugh’s, so they complain about the process to convince their supporters that the outcome is illegitimate.

As one protester with Resist Fascism said at the rally in front of the Capitol, “If you think you can solve this in 2020 with the elections, wake up. … [Trump’s] not going to respect the electoral process. … Let’s never forget he lost the last election and he’s still in power. You have to deal with the racist Electoral College. … Banking on 2020 is an illusion.”

As Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court was a foregone conclusion, so is Trump’s acquittal in the Senate. For this reason, the left is using every weapon in its arsenal to convince its base that the process itself is corrupt, that Republican senators are running a cover-up. This is why protesters swarmed the Senate.

Trump’s Impeachment Is Similar to the Kavanaugh Debacle
In a Washington Post article titled, “Impeachment feels a lot like Kavanaugh 2.0,” the author points out that like in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, Trump critics “have long been searching desperately for something, anything, with which to take down the designated victim.”

The author of this article, Ruth Marcus, does not believe the motives of Trump’s accusers or prosecutors should matter if Trump indeed abused his power. Understanding one’s motivations, however, is often important in understanding their actions. In this case, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board sees through the Democrats’ call for witnesses and documents:

[H]aving failed to make an adequate case to remove Mr. Trump, Democrats are trying to drag out impeachment to further tarnish his reputation and mousetrap Senate Republicans running for re-election. She demands what she calls a ‘fair trial’ after preventing a fair impeachment probe in the House. This is an abuse of the impeachment power.


Whether or not John Bolton testifies, whether the White House turns over every document that mentions Ukraine, Biden, or Burisma, it won’t matter to those on the left who want to see Trump thrown out of office. To them, this is an existential crisis.

Their entire identity is wrapped up in their hatred for Trump. As long as Trump remains president, activists will continue to disrupt normal political processes, swarming buildings and storming hearings, claiming the system is corrupt, that there is a cover-up, and that the other side is cheating.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/murkowski-to-vote-against-calling-witnesses-in-impeachment-trial-109997

Sen. Lisa Murkowski will not support hearing from new witnesses, essentially ensuring the vote fails on the Senate floor this afternoon.

The decision by a key swing vote will likely absolve Chief Justice John Roberts from having to decide whether to break a tie.

[soonernvolved]

Lisa Murkowski hammered Elizabeth Warren over this:

keyt.com/news/politics/2020/01/31/read-gop-sen-lisa-murkowskis-statement-on-impeachment-trial-witness-vote/

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) today released the following statement on the Senate vote regarding additional evidence for the court of impeachment:

“I worked for a fair, honest, and transparent process, modeled after the Clinton trial, to provide ample time for both sides to present their cases, ask thoughtful questions, and determine whether we need more.

“The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena.

“Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed.

“It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort. We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another.

“We are sadly at a low point of division in this country.”

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Schiff starting to lose it:

effectively, ‘You can act corruptly’…the president becomes unaccountable to anyone,” Schiff said.

“The president, effectively, for all intents and purposes, becomes above the law.”

Schiff added, “Our government is no longer a government with three co-equal branches,” he said.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/31/house-democrats-ask-senate-for-one-week-for-witnesses-documents/

House impeachment managers reiterated an offer to the Senate on Friday that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) first made the night before: allow one week for witnesses to appear for depositions, and for review of documents.

The “one week” offer appeared designed to assuage concerns that calling new witnesses would lead to long, drawn-out court battles over executive privilege, or that testimony could make the trial last for many months.

Alternatively, the “one week” offer also provided Democrats with a simple request that, if denied, could be used as evidence that the House impeachment managers had been willing to compromise with Republicans.


House Democrats did not, however, explain how the “one week” offer would fit into the cramped political schedule for next week. Following Super Bowl LIV on Sunday, the presidential primary process kicks off Monday with the Iowa caucuses. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump is scheduled to deliver the State of the Union address — thanks to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), herself who invited him.

Several Senate Democrats who are running for president are eager to return to the campaign trail, having lost almost two weeks of face time with voters. On Friday, they will face off in the last debate before the New Hampshire primary. There are only two real working days next week — Wednesday and Thursday — and the Senate has already lost a month of work to the impeachment that Democrats said was urgent, then delayed.

Lawyers for the president have pointed out that during the month-long delay when the House refused to deliver the articles of impeachment, it failed to take any steps to secure more witnesses and documents.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/31/democrats-history-of-intimidating-scotus-justices-carries-over-into-impeachment/

Democrats’ History Of Intimidating SCOTUS Justices Carries Over Into Impeachment
JANUARY 31, 2020 By Erielle Davidson
Chief Justice John Roberts’ expression was priceless after reading Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s garish question during the Senate impeachment trial Thursday night, a question which lacked any remote sense of self awareness.

The inquiry facetiously read, “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”


The purpose of the question was stunningly obvious. It was to suggest that the only way Chief Justice John Roberts could remotely hold onto any semblance of legitimacy was to ensure the outcome favored by the Democrats came to fruition, an outcome which, given the increasingly likely failed motion, would require Chief Justice Roberts to interfere in a manner that is not explicitly written into the Constitution.

As a seasoned lawyer, she knew precisely the type of question she was asking. One that reached to a sore spot for the Supreme Court and one over which they have continued to opine. The question of how much of a role public faith in the federal judiciary should play in judicial decision-making has been a topic hotly contested. It was scrutinized heavily when it reared its ugly head in Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, when it appeared alongside a menagerie of other factors that may be considered in the process of determining whether to overrule precedent. It wasn’t regarded as wholly dispositive, and it’s debatable whether it should be considered at all.

With Sen. Lisa Murkowski likely voting no on the Democrats’ motion to allow witnesses, there’s little risk of a tie any longer, meaning Roberts is thankfully off the hook – at least for now. But when it comes to Roberts’ role in “breaking a tie,” should there be one in the trial, the language of Article I, Section III of the Constitution does not make it clear whether the Chief Justice is permitted to vote. Yet, the undercurrent of Warren’s question suggested that his involvement was somehow critical for the sanctity of SCOTUS’ reputation. It’s utter nonsense, but it is perfectly on-brand for the Democrats since President Trump’s election in 2016. She’s threatening to use the weight of the Democratic Party to conduct warfare on his reputation. We all know the playbook.

Warren’s question points to the increasing number of ways in which the Democrats have applied unsavory pressure on the federal judiciary and in particular, SCOTUS. After President Trump was elected, they threatened to pack the courts in 2020, should a Democrat win the next presidential election. During the Kavanaugh confirmation, they politicized the entirety of the hearings, making a pure mockery of the process, producing soundbites and hand gestures that might be fit for Showtime, rather than the airwaves of C-Span.

Last August, a small consortium of Democratic senators got together to pen one of the most absurd (and frankly, malevolently accusatory) legal briefs that SCOTUS has probably ever laid eyes on. As David French of National Review wrote upon reading:

It is easily the most malicious Supreme Court brief I’ve ever seen. And it comes not from an angry or unhinged private citizen, but from five Democratic members of the United States Senate. Without any foundation, they directly attack the integrity of the five Republican [Supreme Court] appointees and conclude with a threat to take political action against the Court if it doesn’t rule the way they demand.
The brief implicitly accused Republican-appointed justices of caving to their Republican overlords and moneyed interests, the language fit for a wildly partisan and likely not respected NGO, as opposed to U.S. Senators. The brief ended by declaring, “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

The level of partisan shaming and hackery in the brief is quite simply astonishing, but given Warren’s question Thursday night, it is entirely unsurprising. The Democrats have become the party of intimidation, scaring other branches into performing their will or threatening to burn down the entire institution or conduct reputational warfare on the branch itself.

That’s a nice electoral college you have there – it would be a shame if something happened to it. Or that’s a nice presidency you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. Or as French wrote, “Nice nine-person Supreme Court you have there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.”

When the motion likely fails later today, it will send a strong message that the Democrats’ bullying tactics, paraded around as heroic, will no longer be permitted to wreak havoc on our institutions. We’ve had quite enough, and it’s probably high time we returned to addressing the needs of the country instead of indulging a host of hysterical tactics designed to serve as Resistance fodder and moral victories for a party downtrodden by endless infighting.

[soonernvolved]

freebeacon.com/politics/msnbc-contributor-if-trump-is-acquitted-he-will-shut-down-voting-in-california/

MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson on Thursday said President Donald Trump will eliminate Californians' right to vote in the 2020 election if the Senate does not remove him from office.

"Imagine Donald Trump deciding sometime in June, ‘well I heard this conspiracy theory that a whole lot of illegal immigrants voted in California so I've decided that during the presidential election California has to undergo extreme vetting because we can't trust their votes. We’re going to shut down voting in a state,'" Johnson said. "This is literally the kind of thing he will do now. We're not talking hypotheticals anymore."

Johnson, a professor at Morgan State University, referenced the possibility that noncitizens voted in the 2016 and 2018 elections in California. California’s Department of Motor Vehicles reported that some noncitizens in the state might have incorrectly been registered to vote. Separately, the secretary of state’s office was unable to confirm whether noncitizens participated in the 2018 election.


David Rutz breaks down the most important news about the enemies of freedom, here and around the world, in this comprehensive morning newsletter.

Sign up here and stay informed!




Johnson said Americans should "be terrified" of Trump's ability to overthrow America's democratic system.

"This is step one to actual autocracy, not the theoretical one," Johnson said. "Not the one we talk about in class, but an actual president who will say, ‘this state's votes don't count, these people don't have a right to vote, these people can't come into the country.' That is what they are allowing to happen here. And I don't understand how anyone cannot be terrified."

San Francisco in 2018 passed a rule allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections.

[redrex]

I am sure the Dems will find a new bombshell next week

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/31/senate-votes-down-extra-impeachment-witnesses-paves-way-for-trump-acquittal/

The Senate on Friday voted down a motion to allow for additional witnesses to testify as part of the upper chamber’s impeachment trial, all but ensuring a quick acquittal of President Donald Trump.

The 51 to 49 vote thwarted Democrats’ ongoing effort to hear from current and former Trump administration officials such as acting White House Chief of State Mick Mulvaney and former National Security Advisor John Bolton.



Bolton shot to the top of the Democrats’ witness wish list after a New York Times report alleged that his forthcoming book — The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir — contains allegations that President Trump sought to make U.S. military aid to Ukraine conditional on investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. President Trump vehemently denied the report and call the book “nasty & untrue.”
House Democrats’ impeachment managers failed to convince enough moderate Republicans to cross the aisle, falling short of the 51 votes need for more witnesses. Late Thursday evening, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) revealed that he will join the overwhelming majority of his colleagues to vote against hearing from others.
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” the retiring Tennessee Republican said in a statement.

Despite Alexander’s opposition, Democrats still had a glimmer of hope if Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted their way, which would have set up Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to decide on casting the tie-breaking vote. However, Roberts’ aversion to politics had always made the prospect of him voting highly improbable.
However, Murkowski announced Friday that she will oppose hearing from other witnesses. In a pointed statement, Murkowski slammed the impeachment process’s “partisan nature” and said Congress had failed to do its job.


“I worked for a fair, honest, and transparent process, modeled after the Clinton trial, to provide ample time for both sides to present their cases, ask thoughtful questions, and determine whether we need more,” said Murkowski. “The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena.”
“Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed,” she added.
Only two Republicans — Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) — voted in favor of the motion for more witnesses, with the former saying he believes that it was important to hear from Bolton.

Shortly after Alexander’s announcement, Collins said she would vote for witnesses as “the most sensible way to proceed.”
“I believe hearing from certain witnesses would give each side the opportunity to more fully and fairly make their case, resolve any ambiguities, and provide additional clarity. Therefore, I will vote in support of the motion to allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed,” Collins said.
“If this motion passes, I believe that the most sensible way to proceed would be for the House Managers and the President’s attorneys to attempt to agree on a limited and equal number of witnesses for each side. If they can’t agree, then the Senate could choose the number of witnesses,” added the senator.


Sen. Joe Machin (D-WV) voted in favor of extra witnesses. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) also voted in favor.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and his counterpart, Senate Minority Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have told their caucuses that they have reached a proposal to vote to the president on Wednesday, according to NBC News. However, the New York Democrat said Friday that there’s no agreement with the Kentucky Republican about when impeachment trial will end.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

A stunned CNN anchor Jake Tapper went on an emotional rant after the Republican controlled Senate voted Friday afternoon on a near party line vote, 51-49, to not call any new witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Trump. The vote telegraphed Trump’s acquittal by the Senate on both charges in the coming days.


In video posted by CNN’s Oliver Darcy, Tapper is seen excitedly speaking to co-host Wolf Bltzer, waving his arm high, at other points waving both hands all while whining in disbelief that the Republicans rejected hearing from former Trump national security advisor Ambassador John Bolton (who has a book accusing Trump of stuff!) and also ignored a statement from former Trump White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly that he believed Bolton and that witnesses should be called..

[soonernvolved]

On Friday evening Chuck Schumer requested a vote to call in former Trump advisor John Bolton.

That got shot down too… Just for kicks.
51-49