January 19-22, 2020
Jan 19 00:20 The Democrats' initial response Jan 19 07:08 First Amendment getting assaulted Jan 19 08:52 Julian Zelizer's dishonesty Jan 19 23:15 Proof that House and Senate Democrats hate the Constitution Jan 20 08:33 The Democrats' BS problem Jan 20 23:02 That's Sen. Schumer's threat? Jan 21 11:41 Democrats' impeachment crises Jan 22 01:52 Team Trump smashes Schiff-Schumer in Senate showdown Jan 22 10:13 There Schiff goes again
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
The Democrats' initial response
Everything you need to know about the House Democrats' reply is found in the size of the Democrats' response. While President Trump's legal team's first filing was 7 pages, the Democrats' first filing is 111 pages . The Trump filing is sharp, concise and filled with substance. The Democrats' filing appears to take a throw-the-spaghetti-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach.
The first lie contained in the filing states "During a July 25, 2019 phone call, after President Zelensky expressed gratitude to President Trump for American military assistance, President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to 'do us a favor though.' The 'favor' he sought was for Ukraine to publicly announce two investigations that President Trump believed would improve his domestic political prospects." This isn't the first time that Democrats have used this lie. What was actually said is this :
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike : I guess you have one of your weal thy people : The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation : I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
It's frightening that the Democrats said that President Trump called for an investigation into Joe Biden as a personal favor. That transcript is proof that Joe Biden's name isn't found anywhere in that paragraph. This isn't a spin piece in Rolling Stone Magazine. This is a brief filed in the impeachment trial of President Trump. That dishonesty is enough to discredit the Democrats' impeachment managers. Here's another lie from the Democrats' filing:
The second investigation concerned a debunked conspiracy theory that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 Presidential election to aid President Trump, but instead that Ukraine interfered in that election to aid President Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton.
Chairman Schiff tried slipping that lie into the record during the open committee hearing. Devin Nunes slapped that down immediately , noting that the Intel Committee had put out a major report telling how the Russians had interfered in the 2016 election. Then Nunes stated that, in addition to the Russians interfering with the 2016 election, Ukraine tried interfering in that election, too:
In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump's campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.
In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.
That's the definition of interference. This isn't some obscure fact that was uncovered by months of interviews and digging. It's something that took less than a minute to uncover with a google search.
[Video no longer available]
There's an old saying that's often attributed to Abraham Lincoln that's applicable here. Lincoln supposedly said "If you want me to talk for an hour, give me 5 minutes. If you want me to talk for 5 minutes, give me an hour to prepare." The principle is that it doesn't take much preparation to talk for hours. If you wanted something concise, though, you'd need time to deliver maximum impact.
Apparently, it doesn't take much time to put together the BS that the Democrats included in this filing.
Posted Sunday, January 19, 2020 12:20 AM
No comments.
First Amendment getting assaulted
Montclair State University is getting sued for allegedly violating their students First Amendment rights :
On Sept. 10, 2019, Mena Botros and two fellow students dressed in orange jump suits and held up signs voicing their support - as pretend criminals - for gun-free zones. The purpose was to express their belief that laws creating gun-free zones only benefit criminals and harm law-abiding citizens. Despite peacefully expressing their ideas in a common outdoor area of campus, a campus police officer forced them to stop. He told the students that anyone who wants to speak on campus has to obtain permission at least two weeks in advance and that the dean's office would assign them a time and place to speak. The students, affiliated with Young Americans for Liberty, are challenging the two-week requirement because it unconstitutionally suppresses all speech and because it allows the university to deny or delay a student's request for permission for any reason.
Nowhere in the First Amendment does it give government the right to schedule free speech events. The text of the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The University will lose this lawsuit because they prohibited students from peaceably assembling on their campus and because their demonstration highlighted a public policy disagreement with the government. Further, the thought that any presentation might be rejected by the powers-that-be flies in the face of the principles of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that government can't tell people what they can say. Government of any sort can't tell when people or corporations when they can talk. It's worth noting that Citizens United "arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections." The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka McCain-Feingold, prohibited that. Ultimately, the Supreme Court prohibited McCain-Feingold.
The policy, called the Demonstrations and Assemblies Policy , stated that anyone, especially groups or organizations, should give two weeks of advance notice to the dean of students with their "planned objective" of the event. The dean would then review the application and either approve or reject the application or, the suit alleges, modify the demonstration of "any reason : . within any set timeframe."
According to the text of the First Amendment, nobody has the authority to reject applications to speak freely. Nobody, whether we're talking about the President of the United States or the Chief Justice of the United States, is allowed to restrict political speech.
Posted Sunday, January 19, 2020 7:08 AM
No comments.
Julian Zelizer's dishonesty
Julian Zelizer's dishonesty is disgustingly displayed in this article when he writes "Dershowitz was repeating a line of argument that we've heard before from Trump's staunchest defenders. Presidential power is so total and so complete, the argument goes, that there is almost nothing that Trump could do to warrant impeachment." That isn't the argument that Professor Dershowitz is making. In fact, it isn't even close.
In the Trump legal team's initial filing, which I wrote about here , Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow noted that "the Supreme Court has recognized, the President's constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch information is at its apex in the field of foreign relations and national security. "
The Trump legal team's initial filing is 7 pages long. It doesn't take much time to read through that filing, especially compared with reading through the 111 pages of word salad in the House Democrats' initial filing. It's difficult to picture Zelizer not reading through both filings. Perhaps he didn't but, if he didn't, then that's sloppy journalism.
The argument that Professor Dershowitz is making is that impeachable offenses must be "Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." In this interview, Professor Dershowitz gives insight into what his responsibility will be:
[Video no longer available]
This is sloppy, too:
To be sure, Dershowitz's outlook is rooted in a growing body of work that took hold in conservative circles since the 1980s about expansive executive power. A number of prominent right-wing legal practitioners and scholars, including Attorney General William Barr, subscribed to the notion that the powers of the president are bold, almost total. They rejected the direction of Watergate-era congressional reforms, such as the War Powers Act, that sought to constrain the president.
According to the Constitution, Congress has the affirmative responsibility of declaring war. The Constitution also gives the Senate the responsibility of ratifying treaties. Ratification requires "two thirds of the Senators present concur" with treaties negotiated by the President. The other responsibility that Congress has with regards to foreign policy is the power of the purse.
Congress doesn't have the authority to prosecute wars or execute foreign policy. That's the Executive Branch's responsibility. Period. Full stop. Imagine how utterly dysfunctional foreign policy would be if we had 536 commanders-in-chief.
Conservatives have also supported President Trump by employing the "unitary executive" theory, arguing that the President has broad powers over the executive branch. This was the argument Barr used before becoming attorney general to defend Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey.
The current administration has taken these arguments even further to justify the brazen actions of Trump with regards to Ukraine and the obstruction of Congress. Defenders such as Dershowitz have gone so far in their arguments that they have tried to essentially nullify any constitutional provisions that we have to make certain that presidents are held accountable.
Instead of a system of checks and balances, the logic of their claims imply the founders wanted a chief executive without restraint. This country was founded on the revolt against a monarchy -- now Trump's defenders are trying to argue for more of the same.
That final paragraph is intellectually sloppy. The men who debated, then wrote the Constitution, wanted a congress that essentially passed the budget and set naturalization laws. These men understood the importance of a single commander-in-chief for prosecuting wars and a chief executive officer who negotiated treaties. That doesn't mean that Congress is voiceless in these decisions.
That being said, Congress shouldn't use the power of the purse to stop a war without a very good reason that's supported by virtually the entire nation. Once war is declared, it should be controlled by the Executive Branch barring historic corruption.
Posted Sunday, January 19, 2020 8:52 AM
No comments.
Proof that House and Senate Democrats hate the Constitution
Remember the Democrats' assault against then-Judge Kavanaugh's constitutional protections? (FYI- That's a rhetorical question.) How can we forget Hawaii Democrat Mazie Hirono's interview where she insisted that Justice Kavanaugh shouldn't be presumed innocent? Here's Sen. Hirono hating Justice Kavanaugh because she's a partisan Democrat:
[Video no longer available]
During Mark Levin's interview with Rep. Doug Collins, which aired tonight, Collins said "It's amazing to me how they're willingly setting that aside to come up to this -- Steny Hoyer actually said 'we allowed him every opportunity to come prove his innocence,'."
For more than a year, Democrats have twisted the Constitution into a nearly-unrecognizable shape. A political party that thinks that people have to prove their innocence is a political party that's too twisted to govern. People are presumed innocent, not just because of the Bill of Rights, but because it would be immoral to put people in prison based on accusations.
The truth is that Democrats don't consistently think that a person is presumed guilty. When the subject changes to Joe and Hunter Biden, they think that they've been exonerated without investigations. In other words, Democrats think that other Democrats have earned a presumption of innocence while Republicans are inherently evil and undeserving of that presumption.
Obviously, the point is that Democrats aren't principled constitutionalists. They're situational constitutionalists, meaning they sing the Constitution's praises when it fits their narrative.
When President Trump's legal team makes its case, probably by Thursday of this week, it will be the first full-throated defense President Trump's team will have been allowed to put together. As I wrote here , "Republicans don't need to shaft Democrats because these facts are on their side:
- Neither article rises to the level of treason, bribery, or 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'
- The exculpatory evidence that Republicans tried to present during the impeachment House hearings will be introduced on the Senate side.
- This time, the jurors won't be a group of outcome-based partisan Democrats.
When we're finished with one-sided impeachment hearings, most people will be surprised at how empty the Democrats' case is. That's when most people will understand the Democrats' empty rhetoric about the Constitution and patriotism.
Posted Sunday, January 19, 2020 11:15 PM
No comments.
The Democrats' BS problem
The Democrats' impeachment managers have a BS problem. Democrats filled their 111-page filing with tons of accusations. What it lacks in evidence, it makes up for in BS .
For instance, the Democrats' impeachment managers say "that the president 'abused the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain, thereby jeopardizing our national security, the integrity of our elections, and our democracy.'" The problem with that statement is that it's an accusation without any proof. Democrats conflate separate sentences from separate paragraphs on separate pages in their attempt to prove this accusation. (That's a polite way of saying that these Democrats lied.)
In the Democrats' first filing, they wrote "During a July 25, 2019 phone call, after President Zelensky expressed gratitude to President Trump for American military assistance, President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to 'do us a favor though.' The 'favor' he sought was for Ukraine to publicly announce two investigations that President Trump believed would improve his domestic political prospects."
What was actually said is strikingly different :
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike : I guess you have one of your weal thy people : The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation : I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
Nowhere in that paragraph does President Trump ask for a personal favor. The Democrats' impeachment managers know that. Anyone with a fourth-grade reading comprehension level understands that. Democrats don't care about the truth, though, because Orange Man Bad. They've hated President Trump since he was Citizen Trump.
This is another unsubstantiated allegation included in the Democrats' filing:;
"President Trump's misconduct presents a danger to our democratic processes, our national security, and our commitment to the rule of law. He must be removed from office," the managers said in the brief.
How does President Trump present "a danger to : our national security?" What's the Democrats' proof that President Trump has violated any of "our democratic processes?" When hasn't President Trump showed a steadfast commitment to the rule of law?
The Democrats' filing is filled with important-sounding words. It's just devoid of evidence proving the Democrats' accusations. Jerry Nadler's appearance on CBS's Face the Nation is a 7-minute-long exhibition of BS:
[Video no longer available]
The Democrats' highest hurdle might be that they didn't accuse President Trump of committing a crime, much less of committing a high crime. It shouldn't be possible to impeach a president who hasn't committed a crime.
When this impeachment trial is finished, here's hoping that the nation a) punishes the people who put us through this nightmare and b) resolves never to let such a fiasco happen again.
Posted Monday, January 20, 2020 8:33 AM
No comments.
That's Sen. Schumer's threat?
For approximately a week, Sen. Schumer has threatened GOP senators by saying he'd force them to take difficult votes. Sen. Schumer intends on submitting a series of amendments to the Senate's impeachment rules package. The primary difficult vote would be to call 4 witnesses: John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair and Michael Duffey.
Supposedly, that's Sen. Schumer's serious threat. That isn't much of a threat. Included in Sen. McConnell's rules is a provision that will call for a vote on witnesses after the Democrats' presentation, President Trump's team's presentation and questions from senators. Those 3 steps will take a maximum of 64 hours total. At the end of those segments, there will be a vote on whether to call witnesses, then a series of votes on each individual witness.
If it's determined that the Democrats' case is weak, which is a distinct possibility, a vote against calling witnesses would seem entirely legitimate. If it's determined not to call witnesses, then a motion to acquit President Trump will be in order. If that motion is voted upon, expect perhaps 2 Democrats to vote with all 53 Republicans to acquit.
It's difficult picturing voters punishing senators for voting against calling witnesses at the start of the trial if they vote for witnesses later in the trial. At this point, it's likely that they'll call at least a couple of witnesses. Further, expect Republicans to call witnesses, too. This won't be a one-sided affair like they ran in the House.
With the Iowa Caucuses closing in, it's difficult picturing Democrats fighting for additional witnesses. What's astonishing is that Sen. Schumer admits during this press availability that the House Democrats' case is deficient in proof:
[Video no longer available]
It isn't logical to say that you have overwhelming evidence to convict, then insist that you'll "fight tooth and nail" for witnesses. Which is it, Sen. Schumer? Do you have enough proof to convict? If you do, why do you need to drag out the trial with additional witnesses?
This is proof of Sen. Schumer talking out of both sides of his mouth. Again.
Posted Monday, January 20, 2020 11:02 PM
No comments.
Democrats' impeachment crises
The Democrats have 2 major difficulties staring right at them. The first difficulty is their unwillingness to fight for the witnesses that they now insist are essential to a fair trial. Why didn't Mssrs. Schiff and Nadler file a lawsuit to compel John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney to testify?
Please don't tell us that it would've taken too much time. That excuse is forever discredited thanks to Emperor Pelosi withholding the Articles of Impeachment for a month. Most likely, they didn't file that lawsuit because they knew that the court would rule against them. The court likely would've ruled that both people were covered by executive privilege.
The other difficulty Democrats have is explaining why they haven't released all of the depositions from the Impeachment Committee hearings. The only deposition that hasn't been released is Michael Atkinson's testimony. Atkinson is the ICIG. He's the guy that gave us the whistleblower. He's also under investigation, according to Devin Nunes.
The Democrats' other crisis is their unwillingness to let any Republican-called witnesses testify. What exculpatory evidence was hidden as a direct result of that decision? In the House Judiciary Committee mark-up hearing, Chairman Nadler refused to provide for a minority witness hearing, as required by House rules. When asked why he didn't let Republicans call witnesses, Chairman Nadler said that they weren't relevant .
One of the witnesses that Republicans wanted to call is the faux whistle-blower. Democrats insist he must remain anonymous. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says he can't. The Constitution wins those fights.
What are Democrats hiding? Are Democrats trying to hide exculpatory evidence? They haven't released the transcript of their behind-closed-doors deposition of ICIG Michael Atkinson. According to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Devin Nunes, Atkinson " is under active investigation ."
(Atkinson) is under active investigation. I'm not gonna go any farther than that because you know obviously he has a chance to come in and prove his innocence, but my guess is Schiff, Atkinson they don't want that transcript out because it's very damaging, Rep. Nunes said.
According to Sara Carter's reporting, "Republican lawmakers asked Atkinson to explain who revised the complaint and for what reason."
"And nobody in the media is calling for it," [Ranking Member Nunes] told The Sara Carter Show. "You'd think they would be, but you know I've talked about it on television, John Ratcliffe's talked about it on television. There's very few of us that actually know what's in the transcript, but, yeah, it's a major problem."
Atkinson is certainly relevant to this impeachment trial because he's the person who helped the whistle-blower file his complaint. What are Democrats hiding in Atkinson's deposition transcript? It must be something important. Inspectors general don't get investigated over trivial things.
[Video no longer available]
John Ratcliffe articulated the argument beautifully in this interview:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:41 AM
No comments.
Team Trump smashes Schiff-Schumer in Senate showdown
As soon as Sen. Mitch McConnell introduced his rules resolution, Chuck Schumer started submitting amendments to change the rules resolution. When Chairman Schiff would rise to support Schumer's amendments, he would drone on and on and on and on and : you get the picture. Despite using virtually all of the Democrats' allotted time, Schiff's presentations were often exposed as incomplete (to put it charitably).
When Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow or Patrick Philbin would rise in support of tabling Sen. Schumer's amendment, they'd take Schiff's arguments apart while highlighting the cherrypicked and incomplete information. The best part of Team Trump's presentation was that it was sharp, aggressive and short. Team Trump understood that their audience, aka the American people, don't have lengthy attention spans.
During one of the afternoon recesses, Dana Perino nailed it , saying "He has to make a decision. Does he want to go through all of these or tell [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell: 'Put these amendments in the record. Table them all at once. Get to the substance right away.'"
Perino noted that "most observers have a 'limited amount of attention span'" while saying "not just in the [Senate] room : but for America," she added. "Who is paying attention?"
Another thing that stood out was how Republicans trained their sights on Chairman Schiff's credibility. Mr. Cipollone's presentation sliced Mr. Schiff into tiny pieces:
[Video no longer available]
Talking about taking depositions, Cipollone said "the President was forbidden from attending. The President wasn't allowed to have a lawyer present. In every other impeachment proceeding, the President has been given a minimum of -- minimal due process. Not even Mr. Schiff's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF. Information was selectively leaked out. Witnesses were threatened. Good public servants were told they would be held in contempt. They were told they were obstructing."
The Trump team attorneys are getting under Schiff's skin :
The lawyers invoked Schiff's name over and over again, accusing him of hiding documents, conducting an unfair impeachment inquiry and fabricating the text of the July 25 phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine. Just as Schiff sat down from making a lengthy opening case for new witnesses and documents, Sekulow took over and with a booming voice accused Schiff of telling falsehoods and "put[ting] words into transcripts that did not exist."
Schiff kept his eyes wide open and glued on Sekulow, possibly aghast that Trump's lawyers were putting him on trial.
Then it was Cipollone's turn. He said it was "difficult" to hear Schiff tell his "tale." He laid into Schiff even more and accused his staff of working with the Ukraine whistleblower, "contrary to his prior statements." "Will Mr. Schiff give documents," Cipollone pressed.
Mr. Nadler played a limited but important role in Tuesday's trial. Late in the night, Nadler made this wild accusation :
"It's embarrassing," Nadler began. "The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray you pledge to be an impartial juror? : Will you bring Ambassador Bolton here? Will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president's misconduct? Or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president's coverup ? So far I'm sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote."
As far as I know, that was the only time Chairman Nadler made a presentation to the Senate. I strongly recommend that this be his last presentation.
Posted Wednesday, January 22, 2020 1:52 AM
No comments.
There Schiff goes again
Apparently, it's difficult, if not impossible, for Adam Schiff to go a day without telling a whopper. Tuesday night, Politico reported that Chairman Schiff "appears to have mischaracterized a text message exchange between two players in the Ukraine saga, according to documents obtained by POLITICO." During Tuesday's impeachment trial, Politico published an article that said "Schiff (D-Calif.) sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) last week summarizing a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. In one section of the letter, Schiff claims that Parnas 'continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky ,' citing a specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani: "trying to get us mr Z." The remainder of the exchange, which was attached to Schiff's letter - was redacted. But an unredacted version of the exchange shows that several days later, Parnas sent Giuliani a word document that appears to show notes from an interview with Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma, followed by a text message to Giuliani that states: 'mr Z answers my brother.' That suggests Parnas was referring to Zlochevsky not Zelensky."
This is a parody of Chairman Schiff's biggest whopper:
[Video no longer available]
Schiff is in danger of alienating voters. His bombastic comments don't play well in the Heartland. His accusations aren't well-founded. Thus far, Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow have baited him and berated him, which threw him off his game.
During yesterday's rules debate, Schiff would start each round with cherry-picked arguments. When it was their time, Cipollone or Sekulow would go into what they called at one time Paul Harvey's Rest of the Story' strategy. That's where they filled in the unfair things that House Democrats did during the impeachment investigation. They had lots of things to choose from.
Whether it's outright lying or whether it's omitting important details, it's still corruption. Yesterday, the NRSC put out this video mocking House Democrats:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Wednesday, January 22, 2020 10:13 AM
No comments.
