It’s taken months for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) to try to convince the American people that President Donald Trump is a threat to the nation and should be removed from office. It took Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) less than a minute to utterly destroy Schiff’s own credibility on anything anti-Trump.
Jordan spoke to reporters on Wednesday during a break in the senate impeachment trial against Trump, listing a number of things Schiff has declared with certainty that turned out to be false:
<blockquote>We’re supposed to believe Adam Schiff today and everything he’s saying? This is the guy who said, ‘We have more than circumstantial evidence that there was coordination between Trump and Russia, and Russia influenced the election.’ That turned out to be false. Adam Schiff said that the Nunes was false. Michael Horowitz told us no it wasn’t; it was exactly right. Adam Schiff said you can trust the FISA court. Michael Horowitz told us last month that no, you can’t; they lied to the FISA court 17 times. Adam Schiff told us we look forward to hearing from the whistleblower. Adam Schiff said we’ve had no contact with the whistleblower.
Then just yesterday, the story where he misrepresents to all of you to Chairman [Jerry] Nadler and most importantly to the White House counsel that Mr. Z is Mr. Zelensky, when in fact it was Mr. Zlochevsky. But today we’re supposed to believe him? He just talked for two hours and 15 minutes, and we’re supposed to believe everything he said today, in spite of that history, where seven important things he had exactly wrong? … That’s the kind of game that they’re playing here, and, again, I think that the American people see through it all.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Schiff:
-&#8220;More than circumstantial evidence&#8221; of collusion 
-Nunes memo was false 
-FISA process was fine 
-The &#8220;Whistleblower&#8221; would testify 
-&#8220;We haven&#8217;t spoken&#8230; with the &#8216;Whistleblower'&#8221; 
-Parodied <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>&#8216; call 
-&#8220;Mr. Z&#8221; referred to Zelensky
But today we&#8217;re supposed to trust him? <a href="https://t.co/NELzVp2usX">pic.twitter.com/NELzVp2usX</a>
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1220094864848773120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Fox News reporter Gregg Jarrett’s <a href="https://thegreggjarrett.com/rep-jim-jordan-delivers-knockout-blow-to-schiffs-reputation/">personal website</a> noted that “when actual evidence of wrongdoing is present, it does not take three days of continually repeating the same statements that you have been saying for the last three months.”
Further, the website reminded readers that Schiff once wanted to be a screenwriter, suggesting it seems like he “is viewing himself as Mel Gibson’s Braveheart character,” however, “he actually is Bill Murray’s character in Caddyshack.”
As The Daily Wire’s Josh Hammer recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/impeachment-wire-the-latest-on-the-effort-to-impeach-president-trump">reported</a>: “The first couple of days [of the impeachment trial] featured mostly procedural dueling as to the governing rules for the impeachment trial. All in all, it has been a fairly somnolent affair. What’s more, there is <a href="https://theresurgent.com/2020/01/23/heres-how-lame-yesterday-was-in-the-senate-impeachment-trial/">virtually no chance</a> that the two sides’ partisan arguments could plausibly win over all that many in the way of middle-of-the-road swing voters. Not to be too cynical, but it’s very difficult to see how this whole affair doesn’t amount to a huge waste of time.”
Showcasing how much of a political stunt this whole impeachment gamble is, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts publicly scolded the two sides because their rhetoric.
“It is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body. One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner, and using language, that is not conducive to civil discourse,” Roberts said.

Jim Jordan

WATCH: Jim Jordan Eviscerates Adam Schiff’s Credibility In Under A Minute

Adam Schiff

Impeachment

The demands of the Democratic impeachment managers appear to be falling flat with some key potential &#8220;swing votes&#8221; on the other side of the aisle.
One of the Republican moderates Democrats are hoping will be among the four Republican defectors they need to force the subpoenaing of additional witnesses is Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. But the senator&#8217;s comments after three days of the trial suggest she is not going to cave to Democrats&#8217; attempts to force former national security adviser John Bolton and others to testify.
After House Democrats decided not to issue subpoenas to Bolton and other Trump administration officials protected from testifying by executive privilege, citing the supposed &#8220;urgency&#8221; of the situation, Democratic impeachment managers are now demanding the Republican-majority Senate do so. The move could end up drawing out the impeachment for weeks, or even months, as Republicans are warning.
In comments reported by <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/479678-gop-warns-of-drawn-out-executive-privilege-battle-over-bolton-testimony">The Hill</a> Friday, and highlighted by Hot Air&#8217;s <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/01/24/murkowski-house-managers-pushing-us-legal-battle-refused/">Ed Morrissey</a>, Murkowski pushed back on Democrats&#8217; demand that Bolton testify, arguing, in effect, that the Democrats have the process backwards.
&#8220;It’s kind of like the House made a decision that they didn’t want to slow things down by having to go through the courts,&#8221; said the senator. &#8220;And yet now they’re basically saying you guys need to go through the courts. We didn’t but we need you to. That’s kind of where we are.&#8221;
The Hill quotes a few other Republicans who likewise scoffed at the Democrats&#8217; demands, including Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson (R), who told the outlet, &#8220;Do we want to elongate this thing even further? I don’t believe we should.&#8221;
As Morrissey <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/01/23/murkowski-offended-nadlers-cover-accusation/">noted</a>, Murkowski is one of several Senate Republicans who has expressed anger over the antics of the Democratic impeachment managers, particularly House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who has accused them of a &#8220;cover up.&#8221;
In a podcast Wednesday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz made a similar argument to Murkowski about the Democrats suddenly reversing on the subpoenaing witnesses they now say are crucial in making the case. The reversal, said Cruz on &#8220;Verdict with Ted Crush,&#8221; is evidence that the Democrats are just &#8220;playing games.&#8221;
“House Democrats said, ‘We want John Bolton to testify,'&#8221; Cruz <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-ted-cruz-offers-look-behind-the-scenes-on-impeachment-explains-how-dems-quickly-revealed-theyre-playing-games">explained</a> to co-host Michael Knowles, host of The Daily Wire&#8217;s &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; (video below). &#8220;And John Bolton did something very interesting and, I think, very clever. John Bolton’s lawyer went to a federal court in D.C. and filed a pleading that said, ‘Judge, my client has two conflicting obligations: House Democrats have asked him to testify, but the White House has exerted executive privilege that said he can’t testify.’ And his lawyer said, ‘My client doesn’t know what to do. So, Your Honor, he’ll do whatever you tell him to do. We put ourselves at the mercy of the court. You, judge, tell John Bolton what he should do.&#8217;”
&#8220;The next step is remarkable,” Cruz continued. “You know what the House Democrats did? They said never mind. &#8230; And then they get to the Senate and the first thing they want to do is subpoena John Bolton. They literally passed on it in the House.&#8221;
<iframe title="Trump On Trial | Ep. 1" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pIT6X5jviak?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lisa Murkowski

Impeachment ‘Swing Vote’ Murkowski Deals Blow To Democrats’ Witness Demands

John Bolton

Susan Collins

Ted Cruz

And away we go! Tuesday marked the commencement of the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump for “abuse of power” and “<a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge/">obstruction of Congress</a>,” in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-what-exactly-are-they-impeaching-him-for-again">purported violation</a> of the Constitution’s “other high crimes and misdemeanors” enumerated impeachment criterion. The first couple of days featured mostly procedural dueling as to the governing rules for the impeachment trial. All in all, it has been a fairly somnolent affair. What’s more, there is <a href="https://theresurgent.com/2020/01/23/heres-how-lame-yesterday-was-in-the-senate-impeachment-trial/">virtually no chance</a> that the two sides’ partisan arguments could plausibly win over all that many in the way of middle-of-the-road swing voters. Not to be too cynical, but it’s very difficult to see how this whole affair doesn’t amount to a huge waste of time.
Toward the end of the marathon first session, the two sides’ rambunctious rhetoric and caustic demeanor proved too much for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the impeachment trial. As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chief-justice-roberts-finally-the-umpire-he-wanted-to-be-criticizes-both-sides-of-impeachment-trial">reported</a>, Roberts excoriated the two sides: “It is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body. One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner, and using language, that is not conducive to civil discourse.” Freshman Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who once served as a Supreme Court law clerk for the chief justice, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/josh-hawley-chief-justices-impeachment-criticism-in-response-to-extraordinary-democratic-antics">said</a> that he had “never heard [Roberts] deliver an admonishment like that from the bench ever.”
Yesterday, House impeachment managers presented the formal opening argument on their amorphous “abuse of power” first impeachment charge. They are moving on today to make the case for their <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">constitutionally illiterate</a> “obstruction of Congress” charge. In a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-what-exactly-are-they-impeaching-him-for-again">Daily Wire op-ed</a> on Monday, I laid out the case that I think Trump’s impeachment legal defense team should make: “[E]ven though the actual violation of a law is not constitutionally required, Democrats’ current partisan gambit represents the first time in the history of the republic that an impeachment has nonetheless been attempted without the undergirding of a legally violative act. … The conduct upon which Democrats are now attempting to impeach the president is orders of magnitude less destructive than the conduct upon which the Framers would have considered impeachment justified. It reeks of the sort of petty politics and jostling for power that led the Framers to <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/">conscientiously reject</a> the far lesser ‘maladministration’ as a possible grounds for impeachment. … [I]n their recklessness, Democrats have also set a deeply pernicious precedent for the future of the Constitution’s carefully calibrated separation of powers framework.”
Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman made a similar case yesterday at The New York Times. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/opinion/trump-impeachment-defense.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W8HyvWq5g3hkjW5k_XVF4VFFlJ0/*Vmhwrc87wVmwTF_8g6pJcG50/5/f18dQhb0S3__28_NrPV1y9022_XR1ZVhWsYK2y8K_kW3D0cnf640yjkW4z30Cv2M32LQW268C4H8JZxwfW6KHWcV6CBSVlW8XBjNQ5d11mjN52pfp8bwsXBW9h69ms8g8LrmW6KTxwK12kBYdW3Z2TTW1_S7q1W7-H9R74PmMNLW40v3-549gDL8W2d7GMn7QfGy2W1P2pFP8zlwcFW2WxrCK2P6tRSW6BnrKZ1fdYJWN1dSMJymsDT4Vccf6K63ZlwzN3FCNCtFL1xCW2Yns7d99wJc5W8qjDmy1ZDLV6W981S0T1vrMzGW4-wcgr4-GjxsW851tyP7xdKCCVfvg572mtZNWW28GCXq5y5sn1VL7fRQ2962y7W5CdJB-30DjbXW8gRS0v8SWwgmW8TTtXJ4Lkg3WW6z4Qrs5GTPz2W5q1Dkr3ryv3GW8VS1Bn6msLSKW8-H5-n7HMLxMW7t6dvB1hkVxzVTG6ZF2JLfh5W55kd7k7BZym4W6V8dH341BMHqW1pRPdl8P5fFjW5VnZn86_RZlqW3s_BH33NlWjhW1MBjvT83WjV4W8-yBLw2_QKyxW9fc5Xn1SjtjS102&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579959639752000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEAft9YQ_UOTvGU3l9of0qrmvTu2g">His op-ed is well worth your time.</a>
So how does impeachment affect the presidential election? As far as impeachment polling is concerned, <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W961dZ78ss0n9W3MHLkg3_dLp20/*W81xXsB7_r95nW2VqHlG5YMh740/5/f18dQhb0S64C2dYTs8LC6h0MtYQsN6MZMtxj8SDGW3_d4Sh6GmRQdN2LGfK7BY2-lN6HgrnQT7ZPFVBCQ6L23yjHyV8bRZz19M9jdW8wzwBj555Pd0W5411QW8jT5bqW4x_rks8JBjh-W92jW6c4mB4DLW2TJLc347znF9W3-DFjr1j6CxjMq4TH1QXGfLW3Z67wb833v6hN1xP3vwNxvl5V4_dy35Pmr07N5CTZ1VfbNk9Ml1YchJYFQ6W7NRNbR8ZCD21W4LBKjx2CrCHCW3xZVyH3HDbHWW124WPF8CjYLmW81LxjT2ZCd5pW7CY2sT9k85xTN1Db_rkp14zNW816bHW51x6BMW3ZFWpV1qhs8zW4Qhlqw6zBp3TW2RXhzn432yWkW3YM4b023y9RWW4VQMKT7mXxpVW1gzBr58dVNX7W5t6qk68n_kftW16_ZDs7g3j2SW2vwsdd4kHn1pW3zMPlr5tdfP5W2Z-YLL7rR904W1FdxDh6SQ30-W7BKmFM8vRVVmW6Dd5m27BycrMW8cWs6g6XFfJSW66Hm-Q6X_k6gW8RqlSv4mMCGQW9jJ93B3ng3fFVjQfxn1sQRJpV2VJrH73W79g103" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FiveThirtyEight</a> — which Impeachment Wire has consistently cited — still shows a slim majority in support of impeachment. The <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html">RealClearPolitics average</a> shows opposition to impeachment polling slightly higher than support for it, and that margin actually seems to be increasing ever so slightly. My best prediction is that, as this saga continues to unfold, the political and electoral fallout will only continue to redound to Republicans’ benefit.
&nbsp;
This piece will be frequently updated.
RELATED: <a href="http://lp.dailywire.com/getelectionwire/">Sign up here for Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer&#8217;s weekly newsletter on election news, polling data, and analysis: &#8220;Election Wire.&#8221;</a>

House Democrats Hold Meeting To Discuss Impeachment Inquiry

Impeachment Wire: The Latest On The Effort To Impeach President Trump

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Donald Trump

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

In a move that &#8220;could enhance her chances of becoming vice president but could also anger liberals in California,&#8221; as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/us/politics/kamala-harris-joe-biden-endorsement.html">The New York Times</a> puts it, former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris appears to be moving closer to making a public endorsement of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Citing &#8220;multiple Democratic officials familiar with her deliberations,&#8221; the Times reported Thursday that Harris is &#8220;weighing an endorsement&#8221; of the man she famously targeted in a racially charged exchange during the first Democratic primary debate.
&#8220;Such a move could lift Mr. Biden’s campaign and perhaps do even more to enhance Ms. Harris’s chances of becoming vice president, but it could also anger her liberal base in California,&#8221; the Times&#8217; Jonathan Martin notes.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Times that if she does end up endorsing Biden, or any candidate for that matter, she will likely hold off until the Senate impeachment trial is over.
&#8220;Yet she and Mr. Biden, the former vice president, have remained in contact since she exited the race and had a long conversation in the immediate aftermath of her departure,&#8221; Martin writes.
Democrats &#8220;close&#8221; to Harris told the Times that she is &#8220;mindful&#8221; that her endorsement would impact the remaining female senators in the race, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and is &#8220;uneasy about the prospect of backing a candidate only to see him or her lose California.&#8221;
A spokesman for Harris insisted that Harris has not decided yet about whether she will endorse a candidate. “Senator Harris remains focused on the ongoing impeachment trial of President Trump,” Harris spokesman Chris Harris told the Times. “No decisions have been made about whether she will endorse, which candidate, nor when an endorsement decision will be made.”
Harris&#8217;s consideration of throwing her support behind Biden follows some head-turning comments by the frontrunner a day after she announced that she was ending her campaign in early December. Asked if he would consider her on the ticket, Biden said, “Of course I would.&#8221;
&#8220;Look, Sen. Harris has the capacity to be anything she wants to be,&#8221; said Biden, who&#8217;s enjoyed a healthy lead in the national polls until recent weeks as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has closed the gap. &#8220;I mean it sincerely. I talked to her yesterday. She’s solid, she can be president someday herself, she can be vice president, she could go on to be a Supreme Court justice, she could be attorney general. I mean she has enormous capability.&#8221;
As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Emily Zanotti <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/joe-biden-says-hes-considering-kamala-harris-as-a-running-mate">noted</a> at the time, Biden particularly benefited from Harris’ departure. &#8220;With Harris gone, Biden can consolidate support among minority voters, increasing his margin of victory in places like South Carolina and Nevada, giving him a commanding lead in places he’s already expected to win,&#8221; Zanotti wrote.
While Biden and Sanders contend for the top spot, the woman with the best shot at the nomination, Warren, has steadily lost ground after a brief bump in the polls in early fall.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-father-asks-elizabeth-warren-if-hes-going-to-get-his-money-back-after-paying-for-daughters-education">WATCH: Father Asks Elizabeth Warren If He’s Going To Get His Money Back After Paying For Daughter’s Education</a>
&nbsp;

Kamala Harris

NYT: Kamala Harris Considers Major Move, Backing Biden; Follows Biden’s VP Comments

Bernie Sanders

Elizabeth Warren

Joe Biden

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said this week that Democrats have made a &#8220;very serious strategic error&#8221; while trying to bolster their case for removing President Donald Trump from office and that the testimony of 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden&#8217;s son, Hunter Biden, was now needed.
&#8220;I think the House managers made a very serious strategic error today,&#8221; Cruz told reporters. &#8220;Adam Schiff’s arguments to open the day today directly drew into question Hunter Biden and made not only his testimony relevant, which it already was, but it is now critical because the House Democrats have built their entire case on the proposition that any investigation into Burisma and corruption was a sham, that it was completely debunked.&#8221;
&#8220;The problem is there is very significant prima facie evidence of corruption,&#8221; Cruz continued. &#8220;Hunter Biden, the son of the then-sitting Vice President Joe Biden, was being paid $83,000 a month, a million dollars a year, this is someone with no background in oil and gas, no experience, and at the same time Joe Biden has publicly admitted that he threatened Ukraine, he withheld, or threatened to withhold a billion dollars of aid unless and until Ukraine fired the prosecutor that was potentially investigating the company on which his son served on the board.&#8221;
Cruz concluded, &#8220;If the House managers case is based on the allegations of corruption concerning Hunter Biden and Joe Biden being a sham than it is directly relevant and I got to say the need for the Senate to hear the testimony of Hunter Biden and the need for the Senate to grant the White House lawyers the ability to take that testimony has become all the more relevant.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Ted Cruz: Hunter Biden&#039;s Testimony &quot;Is Now Critical&quot;" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GiGGHR0fLL8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Cruz later addressed comments made by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who is an impeachment manager, during the Senate trial.
&#8220;One last observation: Yesterday, representative Nadler threw up great indignation and he said out of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian companies, how can it be that President Trump was just concerned with this one, this one company Burisma?&#8221; Cruz said. &#8220;Well, the obvious answer that the House managers ignore is Burisma was the only Ukrainian company that had the son of the vice president that had real prima facie indications of American corruption.&#8221;
Cruz continued, &#8220;We&#8217;re not talking about some abstract interest in any sort of corruption that might exist in Ukraine but if you have a sitting vice president making public policy decisions to benefit his family to the tune of a million bucks a year that raises a serious question of corruption and a president not only is justified in asking for that to be investigated, but has a responsibility to see that that&#8217;s investigated and that was a question not about Ukrainian corruption, but a question about American corruption and Ukraine being integral in helping investigate whether there was, in fact, American corruption.&#8221;
&#8220;I think we&#8217;re gonna hear another two and a half days of arguments from the House Democrats, but the longer they talk at this point, the weaker the case is getting,&#8221; Cruz concluded.

Ted Cruz: Democrats Made ‘Very Serious Strategic Error,’ Hunter Biden Testimony Now Needed

Hunter Biden

On Thursday, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and one of the current House impeachment mangers prosecuting the impeachment case against President Donald Trump in the Senate, opined that Trump&#8217;s conduct with respect to temporarily withholding the disbursement of foreign aid funding to Ukraine &#8220;puts even President Nixon to shame.&#8221; President Richard Nixon, of course, resigned in disgrace following the commencement of House impeachment proceedings against him due to his involvement in the infamous Watergate scandal.
&#8220;Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler Thursday accused President Trump of putting his own personal interests above national security and American democracy and charged that Trump is the only president in history to violate his oath of office so flagrantly,&#8221; Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-impeachment-trial-arguments-trump-worse-than-nixon">reported</a>.
“No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections — prior presidents would be shocked to the core by such conduct and rightly so,” the New York Democrat said on the Senate floor, as noted by the outlet.
Reaching a crescendo, Nadler then made his <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-impeachment-trial-live-updates-democrats-make-constitutional/story?id=68480275">stunning comparison</a>: &#8220;This presidential stonewalling of Congress is unprecedented in the 238-year history of our constitutional republic. It puts even President Nixon to shame. Taken together, the articles and the evidence conclusively establish that President Trump has placed his own personal political interests first. He has placed them above our national security, above our free and fair elections, and above our system of checks and balances. This conduct is not America first, it is Donald Trump first.&#8221;
The video can be seen <a href="https://www.politico.com/video/2020/01/23/nadler-trumps-alleged-misconduct-puts-even-president-nixon-to-shame-069461">here, at Politico</a>.
Earlier today, The Daily Wire&#8217;s Hank Berrien <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nadler-accuses-gop-senators-of-cover-up-now-he-may-lose-one-gop-swing-senator">reported</a> that earlier this week at the outset of the Senate impeachment trial, Nadler irked infamously moderate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) with his inflammatory rhetoric about Senate complicity in an alleged White House cover-up.
&#8220;On Tuesday night, [Nadler], speaking before the Senate as it considers the impeachment of President Trump, stated that senators who voted against allowing additional witnesses who were not called upon by the House were guilty in abetting a White House cover up,&#8221; Berrien reported. &#8220;Those comments angered a senator who is largely considered to be a swing vote on the decision, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She reportedly took great offense to Nadler’s remarks, allegedly snapping, &#8216;I took it as very offensive. As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended.'&#8221;
Nadler&#8217;s incendiary rhetoric from earlier in the week <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nadler-accuses-gop-senators-of-cover-up-now-he-may-lose-one-gop-swing-senator">included the following</a>:
<blockquote>I’m struck by what we have heard from the president’s counsel so far tonight. They complain about process but they do not seriously contest any of the allegations against the president. They insist that the president has done nothing wrong.  But they refuse to allow the evidence and hear from the witnesses; they will not permit the American people to hear form the witnesses, and they lie. And lie, and lie, and lie … the president sometimes relies on a theory of absolute immunity that says that he can order anybody in the executive branch not to testify to the House or the Senate or to a court. Obviously this is ridiculous; it’s been flatly rejected by every federal court to consider the idea. It’s embarrassing; the president’s counsels will talk about this today.</blockquote>

Jerry Nadler

Jerry Nadler: Trump’s Conduct ‘Puts Even President Nixon To Shame’

Richard Nixon

America is based on trust. That’s why President Donald Trump is winning and why Democrats are flailing — on the campaign trail and in their impeachment trial. Let me explain.
Our nation was born, in 1776, with our Founders’ promise of “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to one another. Our Constitution was rooted in 1787, creating — in Benjamin Franklin’s famous warning — “a republic, if you can keep it.” And of course, the only way to “keep” a republic is through institutions of mutual trust and responsibility — from your local churches and Little Leagues up to federal agencies and the news media who cover it.
Today, you hear a lot about our institutions breaking “down,” but in truth, they are breaking “trust.” Recent examples are fresh in our minds: The child abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, the explosion of #MeToo cases finally taking down prominent business and entertainment superstars, the monstrous lies of the Bush and Obama administrations told to cover up their military failures in Afghanistan, and even the revelations of rampant cheating in Major League Baseball.
But perhaps the greatest threat we face today is that in this age of distrust, scandals like those are still shocking, but no longer surprising. America’s vast reserves of trust — built up through generations of cooperative association in our voluntary civil society, our free enterprise economy, and our accountable, constitutional republic — are being drawn down every day. Leaders treat their organizations the way spoiled toddlers treat their toys.
The problem is everywhere, but like most problems, it’s worst in Washington, D.C.
Today, Congress is leading America’s institutional race to the bottom. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her lieutenants think their impeachment witch hunt is hurting President Trump. But the president’s polling indicates they’re not making a dent — he’s as popular as ever, and deservedly so given his record of almost uninterrupted success in foreign, domestic, and economic affairs. No, Washington Democrats are really hurting the American people, by turning the House of Representatives — and now the Senate — into a phony kangaroo court.
No one involved with the impeachment believes Donald Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors. No one believes he’s going to be removed from office. They simply see the impeachment process as one long attack ad against the president that the liberal media will happily air for them, free of charge. All they care about is attacking President Trump and defeating him in November. (Just like 20 years ago, they didn’t care President Bill Clinton was a perjurer and serial sexual predator; they cared about defending “their team.”)
Blinded by partisanship, Washington Democrats in both cases ignored the damage they have done to the credibility of our governing institutions.
As a nation, we’re facing generational challenges: $22 trillion in debt, driven by unsustainable entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security; a crisis on our border that could explode any time, as drug cartels continue to gain power in Mexico.
Congress created those problems, and so squandered the public trust necessary to solve them right away. But rather than doing the hard work of rebuilding that trust on which our system of government depends, they are embracing the dysfunction. This impeachment fiasco, following on the Mueller investigation, has not only undermined Congress’s credibility — but that of the FBI, the Justice Department, the media, and the entire governing class. Thanks to the Democrats’ reckless partisanship, our institutions are literally in worse shape today than they would have been had they done nothing at all for the last three years.
At a time when the American people are craving authenticity and candor — like President Trump’s straight-talking approach — the Democrats are doubling down on the politics of deception. From the media’s addiction to “Fake News” to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) biographical lies to Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) dissembling about the “whistleblower” to the Deep State’s open conspiracy against the president, the Democratic Party sees its only political hope in exacerbating America’s crisis of distrust.
They believe the only way they can win is by making sure we all lose.
It’s up to Republicans to follow the president’s lead, in this impeachment trial and beyond, to finally rebuild that credibility. He seems to be the only leader in Washington who understands that the only way to win back the people’s trust … is to actually be trustworthy.
&nbsp;
Jim DeMint, chairman of <a style="font-style: italic;" href="https://www.conservativepartnership.org">Conservative Partnership Institute</a>, formerly served as president of The Heritage Foundation and as a U.S. congressman and senator from South Carolina.

President Trump Welcomes College Football Champions LSU Tigers To The White House

DEMINT: The Secret To Trump’s Winning: Trust

Republican Party

The following is satirical.
I know many of you have been watching the Impeachment Trial until you just want to drive a screwdriver through your eye and into your brain so that you not only can’t see the trial but have rooted out every idea that the trial ever existed and so have become like a normal American voter.
So since you’ve been occupied with all that, I thought you might like to catch up on some of the other stupid news that’s also being ignored around the country.
For instance, Mr. Peanut died. Now some of you may be wondering, “Who the hell is Mr. Peanut?” but others among you may be clutching your heart and gasping for breath because you’re 97 years old and have some vague memory that Mr. Peanut was some sort of mascot for a peanut company back in the days when you had teeth.
Apparently, in a desperate bid for attention, the peanut company plans to kill their beloved mascot in a Super Bowl Commercial which features Wesley Snipes and Matt Walsh, although not the Matt Walsh but some other guy also named Matt Walsh.
In the commercial, Snipes, the other Walsh and Mr. Peanut are dangling from a tree branch for some reason and with the sacrificial selflessness we’ve come to expect from our peanuts, Mr. Peanut lets go of the branch to save the others, whereupon he dies in a fiery explosion.
Many viewers were shell-shocked to see the peanut roasted, but others felt it was only right since Mr. Peanut was over a hundred years old and wore a top hat and monocle, which is just creepy in a legume.
In other mascot news, Philadelphia Flyers Hockey Team mascot, Gritty, a furry orange creature of no known species, is under investigation for assaulting a 13-year-old boy. Questioned about the incident by a reporter, Gritty said, “Hey, this is hockey,” and slammed the journalist into a wall.
But that’s enough about ridiculous make-believe people. Unless you want to go back to watching the Impeachment Trial.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senators-getting-bored-with-impeachment-walking-around-grabbing-snacks-bending-rules">Senators Getting ‘Bored’ With Impeachment, Walking Around, Grabbing Snacks, Bending Rules</a>

Mr. Peanut

Millions Mourn Mr. Peanut To Keep From Watching The Impeachment Trial [Satire]

Satire

On Tuesday night, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) speaking before the Senate as it considers the impeachment of President Trump, stated that senators who voted against allowing additional witnesses who were not called upon by the House were guilty in abetting a White House cover up.
Those comments angered a senator who is largely considered to be a swing vote on the decision, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She reportedly took great offense to Nadler’s remarks, allegedly snapping, “I took it as very offensive. As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“I took it as very offensive. As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended,” swing-vote Lisa Murkowski said tonight of Nadler’s presentation last night and his accusation of a GOP coverup
&mdash; Manu Raju (@mkraju) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1220154734633418752?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Murkowski wasn’t alone; as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/22/republicans-nadler-cover-up-accusation-102180">Politico</a> reported, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) snapped, &#8220;If the Democrats are smart, they won&#8217;t put Jerry Nadler on the field again. He was so out of line. It&#8217;s offensive accusing us of a cover-up.&#8221;
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) echoed, &#8220;To my Democratic colleagues, you can say what you want about me, but I&#8217;m covering up nothing. I&#8217;m exposing your hatred of the president.&#8221;
Nadler’s incendiary comments included these:
<blockquote>I’m struck by what we have heard from the president’s counsel so far tonight. They complain about process but they do not seriously contest any of the allegations against the president. They insist that the president has done nothing wrong.  But they refuse to allow the evidence and hear from the witnesses; they will not permit the American people to hear form the witnesses, and they lie. And lie, and lie, and lie … the president sometimes relies on a theory of absolute immunity that says that he can order anybody in the executive branch not to testify to the House or the Senate or to a court. Obviously this is ridiculous; it’s been flatly rejected by every federal court to consider the idea. It’s embarrassing; the president’s counsels will talk about this today.</blockquote>
Nadler <a href="https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/01/22/murkowski-joins-republican-chorus-calling-rep-nadlers-remark-offensive/">also said</a>, “I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote.”
White House counsel Pat Cipollone responded in a calm voice, but his words were fiery enough:
<blockquote>We’ve been respectful of the Senate; we’ve made our arguments to you; and you don’t deserve and we don’t deserve what just happened. Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team; he made false allegations against all of you. He accused you of a cover-up. He’s been making false allegations against the president. The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you, for the way you’ve addressed this body …</blockquote>
He then raised his voice: “Mr. Nadler, you owe an apology to the President of the United States and his family. You owe an apology to the Senate. But most of all, you owe an apology to the American people.&#8221;
Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the proceedings, tried to equate Nadler’s accusations of lying with Cipollone’s demand for an apology, saying:
<blockquote>I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that we are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body; on reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.</blockquote>
H/T <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2020/01/23/oops-nadlers-senate-tirade-had-opposite-effect-on-key-swing-vote-senator-n2559973">Townhall</a>

Senate Impeachment Trial Of President Donald Trump Begins

Nadler Accuses GOP Senators Of Cover-Up. Now He May Lose One GOP Swing Senator.

Jerrold Nadler

On Wednesday, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-senator-josh-hawley-most-important-freshman-josh-hammer">ascendant</a> freshman Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) had some particularly harsh words for the way House Democratic impeachment managers comported themselves thus far during the Senate&#8217;s nascent impeachment trial.
&#8220;#ImpeachmentTrial Day 1 = epic fail for House managers,&#8221; Hawley tweeted. &#8220;Used 13 h[ou]rs to grandstand, repeatedly taking rebuttal time just to delay. Attacked senators. Alienated their audience. Admonished by the Chief Justice for unprofessionalism. If this is best they can do, should just stop now.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImpeachmentTrial?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImpeachmentTrial</a> Day 1 = epic fail for House managers. Used 13 hrs to grandstand, repeatedly taking rebuttal time just to delay. Attacked senators. Alienated their audience. Admonished by the Chief Justice for unprofessionalism. If this is best they can do, should just stop now
&mdash; Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1220033771086458880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
But Hawley, a formerly prolific constitutional attorney and Missouri attorney general who once served as a law clerk on the U.S. Supreme Court for Chief Justice John Roberts, also had some strong words to describe the Democratic antics that precipitated his former boss&#8217;s remarkable rebuke, in the wee hours of the morning, of the rambunctious trial he saw unfolding before him.
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chief-justice-roberts-finally-the-umpire-he-wanted-to-be-criticizes-both-sides-of-impeachment-trial">reported</a> earlier today, Roberts reprimanded what he deemed the overly fraught and puerile behavior of the dueling parties:
<blockquote>“It is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts sternly rebuked. “One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner, and using language, that is not conducive to civil discourse.”
“In the 1905 [Judge Charles] Swayne [impeachment] trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word ‘pettifogging’ — and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used,” the chief justice continued. “I don’t think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”</blockquote>
The chief justice&#8217;s excoriation took Hawley aback: As Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawley-calls-chief-justice-roberts-admonishment-at-impeachment-trial-extraordinary">reports</a>, Hawley said he has &#8220;never heard [Roberts] deliver an admonishment like that from the bench ever.&#8221;
&#8220;He chooses his words very very carefully,&#8221; Hawley continued, according to Fox News. &#8220;He cited a 1905 case impeachment case in which &#8230; one of the sides was &#8230; using language that was thought to be inappropriate. And so while he was careful to &#8230; I think &#8230; to be even-handed about it as is appropriate judicially, it&#8217;s very clear what the impetus for that was &#8230; [Rep. Jerry] Nadler [(D-NY)] getting up and calling the president&#8217;s counsel a bunch of liars.&#8221;
&#8220;I mean, that&#8217;s an extraordinary thing to say on the floor the United States Senate the middle of the trial and that&#8217;s what drew the rebuke [from Roberts] and rightly so,&#8221; Hawley concluded. &#8220;I can tell you, there was an open, open gasping on the Senate floor when Nadler was saying these things.&#8221;
Chief Justice Roberts, a George W. Bush high court nominee who is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-kavanaugh-and-gorsuch-have-issues-john-josh-hammer">widely reputed to care tremendously</a> about preserving the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-it-past-time-trump-openly-defy-court-order-josh-hammer">purported</a> non-politicization of Alexander Hamilton’s <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp">“least dangerous”</a> branch, famously analogized the role of a Supreme Court justice to that of a baseball home plate umpire calling balls and strikes during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.
&#8220;[T]his time, [Roberts] really is just the umpire,&#8221; Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/20/john-roberts-trump-impeachment-101114">observed</a> earlier this week. &#8220;He’s not the one we’re tuning in to see, and the game’s most important decisions and actions belong to other people. And the rulings he makes, for once, can be made under an umpire’s decision-making conditions: All by himself, yes or no, and maybe in real time.&#8221;

Josh Hawley

Josh Hawley: Chief Justice’s Impeachment Criticism In Response To ‘Extraordinary’ Democratic Antics

John Roberts

Supreme Court

In the first episode of a new podcast series, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) peels back the curtain on the impeachment trial, offering Americans a glimpse at more than just the political theater put on for the cameras and giving his perspective on the process as both a senator-juror and a constitutional lawyer.
Asked by co-host Michael Knowles, host of The Daily Wire&#8217;s &#8220;Michael Knowles Show,&#8221; about some of his big takeaways from day one of the trial, Cruz noted that while the Democratic impeachment managers started off putting on a pretty good show, they soon devolved into &#8220;lecturing&#8221; senators and Americans, alike — and they also managed to immediately expose themselves as playing political games rather than trying to seriously get to the truth (video below).
In a discussion about the Democrats attempting to remove the judiciary in the impeachment process, particularly in connection to executive privilege — the issue at the heart of the Democrats&#8217; &#8220;obstruction of Congress&#8221; allegation, one of the two charges the Democrat-majority House brought against Trump without a single Republican vote — Cruz pointed to the Democrats&#8217; reversal on the testimony of a key White House official as evidence that the Democrats are just &#8220;playing games.&#8221;
&#8220;The best way to understand it is look at John Bolton,&#8221; said Cruz. &#8220;A lot of the argument today was about John Bolton, [former] national security adviser to the president. House Democrats said, &#8216;We want John Bolton to testify.'&#8221;
&#8220;And John Bolton did something very interesting and, I think, very clever,&#8221; Cruz continued. &#8220;John Bolton&#8217;s lawyer went to a federal court in D.C. and filed a pleading that said, &#8216;Judge, my client has two conflicting obligations: House Democrats have asked him to testify, but the White House has exerted executive privilege that said he can&#8217;t testify.&#8217; And his lawyer said, &#8216;My client doesn&#8217;t know what to do. So, Your Honor, he&#8217;ll do whatever you tell him to do. We put ourselves at the mercy of the court. You, judge, tell John Bolton what he should do.'&#8221;
&#8220;The next step is remarkable,&#8221; said Cruz. &#8220;You know what the House Democrats did? They said never mind.&#8221; The House Democrats withdrew the subpoena for Bolton&#8217;s deputy and told the judge that they were not going to subpoena Bolton as a witness, Cruz explained.
&#8220;And then they get to the Senate and the first thing they want to do is subpoena John Bolton,&#8221; Cruz said. &#8220;They literally passed on it in the House.&#8221;
What the Democrats just revealed, the senator explained, is that they are not willing to use the proper legal method to get to the truth. Instead, they want to put on a show for the public decrying the &#8220;unfairness&#8221; of the process in front of the cameras in the Senate.
The reason, Cruz underscored, is that the Democrats know they do not have a case for their two impeachment articles, neither of which specifies an actual crime and both of which fail to rise to the definition of &#8220;high crime or misdemeanor,&#8221; as required by the Constitution.
Video of the full episode below:
<iframe title="Trump On Trial | Ep. 1" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pIT6X5jviak?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-ted-cruz-sums-up-first-day-of-impeachment-trial-with-old-saying-offers-prediction">WATCH: Ted Cruz Sums Up First Day Of Impeachment Trial With ‘Old Saying,’ Offers Prediction</a>

WATCH: Ted Cruz Offers Look Behind The Scenes On Impeachment, Explains How Dems Quickly Revealed They’re ‘Playing Games’

Michael Knowles

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is serving as a Democratic impeachment manager during President Donald Trump&#8217;s Senate impeachment trial, admitted on Wednesday that Democrats&#8217; partisan impeachment was about stopping the president from being re-elected.
&#8220;The House did not take this extraordinarily step lightly,&#8221; Schiff began. &#8220;As we will discuss, impeachment exists for cases in which the conduct of the president rises beyond mere policies, disputes to be decided otherwise, and without urgency at the ballot box.&#8221;
&#8220;Instead, we are here today to consider a much more grave matter and that is an attempt to use the powers of the presidency to cheat in an election,&#8221; Schiff continued. &#8220;For precisely this reason, the president&#8217;s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;The president&#39;s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.&quot;
— Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, during his opening statement to the U.S. Senate <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImpeachmentPBS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImpeachmentPBS</a> <a href="https://t.co/LaJux1Bh9I">pic.twitter.com/LaJux1Bh9I</a>
&mdash; PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) <a href="https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/1220056517510156298?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Numerous top Democrats have essentially admitted that their pursuit of having Trump removed from office was about stopping him from being re-elected.
In May, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/06/al_green_im_concerned_if_we_dont_impeach_this_president_he_will_get_re-elected.html">said</a>, “I&#8217;m concerned that if we don&#8217;t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”
Also in May, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pelosi-we-cannot-accept-a-second-term-for-donald-trump">said</a>, “We have to make sure — this will sound political but we have to make sure that the Constitution wins the next presidential election. We can’t be worrying about well, how long is this going to take? Well, that will take as long as it does. And we will press the case so that in the court of public opinion. People will know what is — is right. But we cannot accept a second term for Donald Trump if we are going to be faithful to our democracy and to the Constitution of the United States.”
In November, socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ocasio-cortez-makes-stunning-admission-about-impeachment-during-cnn-interview">told</a> CNN&#8217;s Wolf Blitzer, “At the end of the day, we have to be able to come together as a caucus and if it is this Ukrainian allegation that is what brings the caucus together, um, then I think we have to run with however we unify the House. We also need to move quite quickly because we’re talking about the potential compromise of the 2020 elections,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “And so this is not just about something that has occurred; this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.”
Last month, Green told C-SPAN that there was &#8220;no limit&#8221; to the number of times that Democrats could pursue impeaching Trump.
“A president can be impeached more than once,” Green <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrats-plot-impeaching-trump-multiple-times-including-if-he-wins-re-election-no-limit-to-the-number-of-times-the-house-can-vote-to-impeach/">said</a>. “So, we can do this, we can move forward with what we have on the table currently, we can take this before the Senate and we can still investigate other issues and when the president has committed additional offenses, and my suspicion is that he will, we can take those before the Senate.”
“There is no limit on the number of times the Senate can vote to convict or not a president, no limit to the number of times the House can vote to impeach or not a president,” Green continued. “So, my belief is that the speaker will probably say we’re going to move forward with what we have now, but we’re not going to end investigations and that there may be possible opportunities to do other things at a later time.”

Schiff Admits In Senate Trial That Impeachment About Stopping Trump Re-Election

Perhaps the reason why Democrats are so eager to impeach President Trump is because they believe Americans are &#8220;morons&#8221; for electing him. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) suggested as much while speaking on “<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/shows/fox-and-friends" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fox &amp; Friends</a>” Wednesday morning.
“I know it looks complicated, but this is really very simple,” Kennedy said on the program. “From a larger perspective, here&#8217;s what&#8217;s going on: large portions of the political establishment here in Washington, D.C. think the American people are morons and they&#8217;re not qualified to pick their own president and that&#8217;s why they want to replace President Trump.”
Kennedy, who now serves as a juror during the Senate impeachment trial, went on to excoriate Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for introducing several motions yesterday that were specifically designed to delay the trial as long as possible — thus buttressing suspicions that the process amounts to little more than a game of kabuki theater.
“We were there so long because Senator Schumer made, I think, 10 or 11 different motions, everybody knew they wouldn&#8217;t pass,” Kennedy said. “The purpose was to try to delay the trial. If we had granted Senator Schumer&#8217;s motions, I figure it would have delayed the trial at least until March, maybe April. And we defeated them. Now today we&#8217;ll start hearing the prosecution&#8217;s case.&#8221;
“This case is about two issues,” he continued. “Why did the president ask for an investigation? Was he investigating a political rival or was he investigating corruption? And number two, what did Hunter Biden do for the money? Now, you answer those two questions, and we&#8217;ll be ready to vote.”
As <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-impeachment-trial-begins-with-win-for-the-white-house-as-dems-rules-proposal-is-nixed">reported </a>by Fox News on Wednesday morning, the Senate impeachment trial&#8217;s first day lasted well past midnight and eventually erupted into a near-shouting match between Trump&#8217;s legal team and Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY).
“Nadler, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a ‘treacherous vote’ and a ‘cover-up’ for Republicans to reject the [former National Security Advisor John] Bolton subpoena amendment, claiming that ‘only guilty people try to hide evidence,&#8217;” the outlet reported. “Bolton has reportedly described Trump’s conduct as akin to a ‘drug deal,’ and he has indicated he would be willing to testify and provide relevant information.”
The impeachment trial kickoff became so heated on Tuesday that Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chief-justice-roberts-finally-the-umpire-he-wanted-to-be-criticizes-both-sides-of-impeachment-trial">rebuked both sides</a> of the political aisle for failing to behave as impartial jurors.
“It is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said. “One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner, and using language, that is not conducive to civil discourse.”
“In the 1905 [Judge Charles] Swayne [impeachment] trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word ‘pettifogging’ — and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used,” the chief justice continued. “I don’t think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”

Senator John Kennedy

Sen. Kennedy: Washington Establishment Thinks Americans Are ‘Morons’ For Electing Trump

With impeachment dominating everything from news headlines to dinner conversations to the halls of Congress, America’s most vital international relationships are easily lost in the shuffle.
It starts with Ukraine, the foreign country at the center of the scandal. The impeachment proceedings place U.S. ties with Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelensky — a man elected by the Ukrainian people to help solve the country’s deadly conflict with Russia and to deliver what some call a “revolution of dignity” — in a perilous position.
The much-discussed <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/official-readout-president-trump-s-july-25-phone-call-with-ukraine-s-volodymyr-zelensky/4b228f51-17e7-45bc-b16c-3b2643f3fbe0/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/official-readout-president-trump-s-july-25-phone-call-with-ukraine-s-volodymyr-zelensky/4b228f51-17e7-45bc-b16c-3b2643f3fbe0/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579801320101000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFeiE-OAXVQlo6ZbKlHaqiHwHpBOQ">call</a> between President Donald Trump and Zelensky has become famous not for the world leaders’ conversation on a diplomatic roadmap featuring defense and energy collaboration, but rather on the alleged quid pro quo that sparked the impeachment inquiry.
For Ukraine, the allegations are harmful, at best, and disastrous, at worst. The young post-Soviet state depends on a $400 million annual aid package from the U.S. in order to defend itself against Russia, which in 2014 annexed Crimea in defiance of international law. Yet at this time, when Ukraine remains highly vulnerable to Russian intervention, Kiev’s allies in Washington are engulfed by the continued fallout of the Trump-Zelensky call.
In fact, American support for Ukraine is part of a longer-term strategy. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the U.S. has supplied foreign aid to Ukraine in hopes of fostering pro-Western political and military ties — and it has worked. When Russia annexed Crimea, the U.S. swiftly sanctioned Russia and increased its military backing of Ukraine.
Now, American assistance to Ukraine has transformed into a political football. Trump initially withheld military aid funds, for example, ahead of his call with Zelensky — though they have long since been delivered. Ultimately, any threat to these bilateral relations could simultaneously erode Ukraine’s independence and undercut Washington’s strategic objectives in its ongoing rivalry with Moscow. On the latter issue, one of the most vital aspects of American-Ukrainian diplomatic relations is energy independence. Ukraine and another U.S. ally in the region, Azerbaijan, are studying the possible expansion of the Azerbaijani-led Southern Gas Corridor initiative, which bypasses Russia and promises to diversify the gas supplies available to Europe.
“Ukraine supports the implementation of the Southern Gas Corridor project,” <a href="https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/ukrayina-ta-azerbajdzhan-aktivizuyut-spivpracyu-u-sferi-mizh-58929" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/ukrayina-ta-azerbajdzhan-aktivizuyut-spivpracyu-u-sferi-mizh-58929&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579801320101000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGLAmXztou5dUS8jcg0c0MdmQfL7w">Zelensky told the press</a> following a meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Baku last month. “We have agreed to consider its expansion. This is an important factor in the diversification of the gas supply to European consumers.”
America’s strategic ties in the region also bring to light the moral compass of U.S. foreign policy. In particular, it is incumbent upon the U.S. to be consistent in its treatment of post-Soviet separatist conflicts, as well as to respect the territorial integrity of all post-Soviet states and regions. This priority spans from Ukraine to Azerbaijan and from Crimea to Nagorno-Karabakh, the territory which is the source of the decades-long conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenia carries out an ongoing, illegal occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven other adjacent regions of Azerbaijan — in violation of several U.N. resolutions as well as the <a href="https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rt/snec/c7560.htm" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rt/snec/c7560.htm&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579801320101000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF0tsytOIeYg8_8enkV7h2pxJ5V2A">U.S. State Department policy</a> that “supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.”
At the same time, some of the most vocal congressional advocates for impeachment over the Ukraine allegations — Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), and Brad Sherman (D-CA) — are <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/miller-impeachment-focused-house-democrats-should-clean-their-own-house" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/miller-impeachment-focused-house-democrats-should-clean-their-own-house&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579801320101000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFB5b7y0glonStMlfNCnQCaG1laPA">among Capitol Hill’s leading backers of the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh</a>.
Ukraine and Azerbaijan have also consistently supported one another on the issues of restoring sovereignty and territorial integrity within internationally recognized borders.
“Our relations withstood the tests of time,” Zelensky <a href="https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/ukrayina-ta-azerbajdzhan-demonstruyut-blizki-poziciyi-z-baga-58921" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/ukrayina-ta-azerbajdzhan-demonstruyut-blizki-poziciyi-z-baga-58921&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579801320101000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGzkKbiPeneZTVepBme61R-N2CoYA">said in a separate statement</a> to the media last month. “We have always helped one another in difficult moments, very difficult moments of modern history. So, Azerbaijan has been, is and will be a reliable friend for Ukraine, and I am sure that it will be a strategic partner.”
Russia and Armenia — the respective occupiers of internationally recognized Ukrainian and Azerbaijani territories — also have their own foundational strategic relationships. Yet they maintain those alliances with a number of adversaries of the U.S. and rogue states, such as Iran, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, and Venezuela.
As a world power, America has a responsibility to stand up not only for its own strategic interests, but also for the broad principles of sovereignty and respect for nations&#8217; internationally recognized lands. All-consuming episodes likes impeachment, however, threaten to disrupt the balance and direction of U.S. policy. Rather than succumbing to its domestic polarization, America must prioritize the strategic relationships that will outlive the Trump era.
&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.jpost.com/Author/Maayan-Jaffe-Hoffman">Maayan Hoffman</a> is news editor and head of online content and strategy at The Jerusalem Post. She has been an American-Israeli international journalist for more than two decades.

U.S. President Trump At The World Economic Forum (WEF)

HOFFMAN: Impeachment Threatens America’s Strategy Toward Post-Soviet States

Armenians

Foreign Policy

Russia

Soviet Union

Ukraine

After the clock struck midnight on the East Coast last night, toward the final hours of the marathon U.S. Senate impeachment trial session that featured both the U.S. House manager prosecution and the presidential defense team dueling about the trial&#8217;s procedural rules, Chief Justice John Roberts was peeved. The nation&#8217;s highest jurist, <a href="https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/17/trial-of-impeachment">constitutionally required</a> to preside over a Senate impeachment trial of a president, excoriated both sides for the rambunctiousness and juvenility of their respective rhetoric.
&#8220;A marathon, 12-hour first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight Wednesday morning, as Trump&#8217;s legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-(NY) — in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber,&#8221; Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-impeachment-trial-begins-with-win-for-the-white-house-as-dems-rules-proposal-is-nixed">reported</a>.
&#8220;Nadler, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a &#8216;treacherous vote&#8217; and a &#8216;cover-up&#8217; for Republicans to reject the [former National Security Advisor John] Bolton subpoena amendment, claiming that &#8216;only guilty people try to hide evidence,'&#8221; the outlet continued. &#8220;Bolton has reportedly described Trump&#8217;s conduct as akin to a &#8216;drug deal,&#8217; and he has indicated he would be willing to testify and provide relevant information.&#8221;
President Trump&#8217;s two main defense lawyers, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, both fired back against Nadler. &#8220;Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team,&#8221; Cipollone said. &#8220;He made false allegations against all of you [senators]; he accused you of a cover-up. He&#8217;s been making false allegations against the president. The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler is you, for the way you&#8217;ve addressed the United States Senate. This is the United States Senate. You&#8217;re not in charge here. &#8230; It’s about time we bring this power trip in for a landing.&#8221;
This exchange proved too much for the chief justice.
&#8220;It is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president&#8217;s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world&#8217;s greatest deliberative body,&#8221; Roberts sternly rebuked. &#8220;One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner, and using language, that is not conducive to civil discourse.&#8221;
&#8220;In the 1905 [Judge Charles] Swayne [impeachment] trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word &#8216;pettifogging&#8217; — and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used,&#8221; the chief justice continued. &#8220;I don&#8217;t think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.&#8221;
That the chief justice saw fit to reprimand both sides did not sit well with every Republican senator in the &#8220;world&#8217;s greatest deliberative body.&#8221; Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), himself a lawyer and former U.S. Supreme Court law clerk for Justice Samuel Alito, <a href="https://video.foxnews.com/v/6125557687001#sp=show-clips">told Fox News</a> earlier today that he thought it was &#8220;unfair&#8221; for Roberts to include Trump&#8217;s defense lawyers alongside the Democratic prosecution as part of his critical remarks.
Chief Justice Roberts, a George W. Bush high court nominee who is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-kavanaugh-and-gorsuch-have-issues-john-josh-hammer">widely reputed to care tremendously</a> about preserving the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-it-past-time-trump-openly-defy-court-order-josh-hammer">purported</a> non-politicization of Alexander Hamilton&#8217;s <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp">&#8220;least dangerous&#8221;</a> branch, famously analogized the role of a Supreme Court justice to that of a baseball home plate umpire calling balls and strikes during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/20/john-roberts-trump-impeachment-101114">recently observed</a> how his role overseeing the nation&#8217;s first presidential impeachment trial in two-plus decades could afford him a unique opportunity to bring that analogy to fruition:
<blockquote>[I]n his 14 years as chief justice, Roberts hasn’t really had the role of umpire — and he knows it. That said, Roberts’s comment about balls and strikes probably reflected an aspiration. To the extent that the Court can be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as acting with principled neutrality, its reputation as an arbiter floating above the political scrum is strengthened. And for judges who like to be perceived as doing nothing more than faithfully applying the law, the umpire analogy is always tempting. There’s something appealing about just getting to call balls and strikes.
Now for the first time, the impeachment trial is giving Roberts that chance. For once, Roberts will have a decision-making role in a forum where he himself is not a major player in the drama. The big players are people like McConnell and Schumer, Romney and Murkowski, Nadler and Schiff, Starr and Dershowitz, the witnesses (if any) who testify—and, offstage, the president. Roberts is there, at the center, and he needs to make decisions. But this time, he really is just the umpire. He’s not the one we’re tuning in to see, and the game’s most important decisions and actions belong to other people. And the rulings he makes, for once, can be made under an umpire’s decision-making conditions: All by himself, yes or no, and maybe in real time.
</blockquote>
Roberts, the infamous deciding vote in favor of constitutionally upholding Obamacare&#8217;s individual mandate back in 2012, has long drawn the ire of many conservative critics. Last summer, I opined in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-kavanaugh-and-gorsuch-have-issues-john-josh-hammer">Daily Wire op-ed</a> about the lessons conservatives should learn from his oftentimes lackluster career on the nation&#8217;s highest court:
<blockquote>
The lessons to learn from Roberts’ tremendously disappointing career on the Court are the same <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47351/hammer-draw-right-lessons-kavanaughs-bad-start-no-josh-hammer" data-reader-unique-id="67">lessons that conservatives ought to learn</a> from [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh’s similarly disappointing start. I have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44037/hammer-three-things-conservatives-must-look-future-josh-hammer" data-reader-unique-id="68">identified three broad criteria</a> for which we ought to carefully vet the next Supreme Court nominee: (1) full-spectrum conservatism, (2) stiff resistance to the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect_(United_States_Supreme_Court)" data-reader-unique-id="69">Greenhouse Effect</a>,” and (3) eagerness to aggressively correct course. And for the love of God, also make sure the nominee is also someone with a lengthy paper trail and who will not be tempted by non-legal concerns — such as Roberts’ obvious and indefensible preoccupation with the Court’s “institutional integrity.”
</blockquote>

Chief Justice John Roberts

Chief Justice Roberts, Finally The ‘Umpire’ He Wanted To Be, Criticizes Both Sides Of Impeachment Trial

A handful of Senate Democrats are reportedly discussing a trade deal that would allow former White House national security advisor John Bolton testify in President Donald Trump&#8217;s Senate impeachment trial by trading Bolton&#8217;s testimony for Hunter Biden&#8217;s.
<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-democrats-privately-mull-biden-for-bolton-trade-in-impeachment-trial/ar-BBZcdgW">MSN reports</a> that some Senators are considering the deal in order to &#8220;call Republicans&#8217; bluff&#8221; on witnesses, because they believe Bolton&#8217;s testimony will be far more damaging to the White House than Hunter Biden&#8217;s, though the same group admits they do not know what either would say under oath.
In a grueling, thirteen-hour session Tuesday, Senators argued over Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell&#8217;s (R-KY) stated rules for Trump&#8217;s Senate impeachmen trial, hammering each other over documents, witnesses, session times, and argument length. At 2am, after five straight losses, Democrats finally threw in the towel on presenting additional evidence and hearing from witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment inquiry, though even Republicans left the door open for welcoming further testimony once the two sides have finished presenting opening arguments.
Most Democrats responded to the losses by blaming Republicans for being &#8220;complicit&#8221; in a White House &#8220;cover up,&#8221; even though Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) deliberately limited who could testify in the House impeachment inquiry, lest witnesses accidentally provide evidence to the panel favorable to President Trump. Some Democrats, though, MSN says, have started working on a different sort of response.
&#8220;[B]ehind closed doors, a small group of Democratic senators and aides has begun to question that logic, sounding out colleagues on whether to back a witness deal that could lead to testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton or other administration officials with possible firsthand knowledge of the Ukraine controversy, according to multiple Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions,&#8221; the outlet reported.
&#8220;These Democrats said they believe having Hunter — or possibly Joe Biden — testify could backfire on Trump and the GOP,&#8221; MSN continued, &#8220;giving Biden and the party a platform to strike back and paint Republicans and the White House as obsessed with trying to damage one of Trump’s 2020 presidential rivals.&#8221;
But it&#8217;s not clear, even to these Democrats, that having Joe or Hunter Biden testify is foolproof. Although Senators like Illinois&#8217; Dick Durbin believe Joe Biden would be &#8220;comfortable&#8221; in the Senate and willing to answer simple questions about Trump&#8217;s behavior towards him and his son, Democrats ultimately do not know the extent of Joe or Hunter Biden&#8217;s involvement in Ukraine, and may not want to have the pair answering questions when they aren&#8217;t quite sure what either will say.
Joe Biden&#8217;s camp, also, wants to avoid mention of the Ukraine issue on such a national platform where they don&#8217;t control the message &#8212; and, while they aren&#8217;t saying it publicly, given Hunter Biden&#8217;s recent troubles, may want to avoid associating the former Vice President&#8217;s son with his presidential campaign.
And there may be no payoff: John Bolton has said he will only testify in front of the Senate if called by Republicans, and when asked about what he might say, Bolton was silent. In a confrontational situation, Bolton may just plead the Fifth Amendment, leaving Democrats without much to gain, and everything to lose.

Bolton For Biden? Senate Dems Quietly Considering Trial Witness Trade Deal

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) isn’t usually the Republican senator one thinks of to give a scathing speech about Democrat partisanship, but on Wednesday she gave just such an admonishment regarding the organizing resolution for impeachment. 
“First, the Democratic House impeachment managers told us the evidence against President Trump was ‘overwhelming.’ Right after, we heard there wasn’t enough evidence, and we would need to allow additional testimony in order to get it,” Blackburn said.
The first-term senator went on to criticize the impeachment process taken by House Democrats:
<blockquote> House Democrats had ample opportunity to seek testimony from the witnesses they are now requesting, but they decided instead to rush through their unsubstantiated articles of impeachment. The Democrats are entangled in an intellectually dishonest effort to force a constitutional challenge against executive privilege in the name of taking down President Trump at all costs. We don’t need more testimony – we need less abuse of the Constitution, less mania and zero impeachment do overs. President Trump, like any American, has the right to seek relief in the courts, and if Democrats will punish him for this right, they will do it to anyone. Enough is enough.
Majority Leader McConnell pledged that the trial in his chamber would employ fair process. And today, the Senate set fair rules to review the House’s work. We will continue to run a thorough, constitutional process so we can all get back to improving the lives of the American people.</blockquote>
Blackburn also published <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-marsha-blackburn-impeachment-trial-is-a-political-farce-no-more-witnesses-or-documents-are-needed">an op-ed</a> at Fox News Tuesday evening calling the impeachment trial “a political farce.”
“In the days to come, out of respect for the Constitution, 100 senators will sit quietly and listen to arguments that will no more reveal President Trump’s darkest intentions than they will those of Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or any other person who has relied on candor and objectivity to keep our country afloat,” she wrote.
“No additional witnesses or documents are necessary for the impeachment trial. To admit them would be to legitimize Democrats’ caricature of fairness, and the continuation of a process that will never be more than a political farce,” Blackburn continued.
Her remarks come after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave reporters on Tuesday <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-ted-cruz-sums-up-first-day-of-impeachment-trial-with-old-saying-offers-prediction">a summary</a> of the first day of the impeachment trial and offered a prediction.
“We’ve seen one motion after another after another. They’ve been redundant; they’ve been making the same arguments,” Cruz said. “This seems to be a time for Adam Schiff and the House managers to lecture the American people and attack the president.”
“But, you know, there’s an old saying that ‘If you have the facts, you bang the facts. If you have the law, you bang the law. If you don’t have either, you bang the table,&#8217;” Cruz continued. “Well, this afternoon, we’ve seen a whole lot of table banging.”
“And at the end of the day, we’re in the same spot we were in when we began the day,” he continued, “which is the House articles of impeachment that were passed on a partisan basis, they don’t meet the constitutional standard.”
Cruz then predicted the House managers wouldn’t “meet the constitutional threshold” to remove Trump from office.

Marsha Blackburn

Republican Senator Offers Blistering Rebuke Of Democrat Impeachment Efforts

The attorneys general of 21 states — predictably all Republicans — have sent <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/443876192/State-AG-letter-to-Senate-on-impeachment#from_embed">a letter</a> to the Senate opposing the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ags-urge-senate-to-reject-impeachment-in-stinging-letter-a-dangerous-historical-precedent">exclusively reported</a> on the letter, which was submitted to the Senate on Wednesday morning and called the impeachment “a dangerous historical precedent.”
&#8220;If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers&#8217; design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers,&#8221; the attorneys general wrote.
&#8220;Impeachment should never be a partisan response to one party losing a presidential election. If successful, an impeachment proceeding nullifies the votes of millions of citizens. The Democrat-controlled House passing of these constitutionally-deficient articles of impeachment amounts, at bottom, to a partisan political effort that undermines the democratic process itself. Even an unsuccessful effort to impeach the President undermines the integrity of the 2020 presidential election because it weaponizes a process that should only be initiated in exceedingly rare circumstances and should never be used for partisan purposes,” they continued.
The attorneys general added: “This body should never permit impeachment proceedings to proceed where they are permeated with the clearly partisan objective of energizing a political party’s base to, ultimately, influence a presidential election. Such a raw political and unconstitutional use of the impeachment power should not be countenanced by the Senate.”
The attorneys general suggest that the Democrats’ claim that Trump abused his power of the presidency is constitutionally flaw and suggests Trump “can be impeached for exercising concededly lawful constitutional authority ‘motivated’ by thoughts a House majority unilaterally deems ‘corrupt.’” They point out the Democrats first article of impeachment does not identify any high crimes or misdemeanors committed by Trump but instead repeats the phrase “abuse of power” for effect.
As to Democrats’ second article of impeachment, claiming Trump obstructed Congress, the attorneys general wrote that, under “the House’s ‘unilateral control’ theory of obstruction, the President could be impeached anytime he vigorously invokes and seeks to protect executive privilege in response to the House’s demand for Executive Branch information.”
The attorneys general suggested that if House Democrats seriously believed Trump was unjustified to invoke executive privilege, it should have taken the traditional route of going to court to challenge the assertion. Instead, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) withdrew the subpoena and plowed ahead with impeachment.
The attorneys general later in their letter take Democrats to task for delaying the Impeachment trial by refusing to hand over the articles of impeachment for nearly a month.
“A delayed impeachment trial also harms the nation because it cripples the office holder’s ability to govern effectively and attempts to cast a pall over his legitimacy, a pall which is lifted only by conviction or acquittal. When the officeholder is the President of the United States, a delayed impeachment is particularly harmful, because undermining a President’s constitutional authority, even temporarily, creates serious risks to national security and the separation of powers,” they wrote.

President Donald Trump

‘Dangerous Historical Precedent’: 21 State AGs Send Letter Asking Senate To Reject Impeachment

The following is satirical.
During this historic impeachment trial, it’s important not to just pretend you’re paying attention. You’ve got to pretend you’re paying attention and really sound like you know what you’re talking about. Because if you just pretend to pay attention and sound stupid, people will think you work for CNN. And God knows you don’t want that.
To help out, I’d like to answer some of your impeachment questions.
The first question comes from Shiv, who is currently doing 5 to 10 in San Quentin for forcing a minor to watch &#8220;The Last Airbender.&#8221;
Shiv asks: “Who is Adam Schiff and why does he look like that?”
Adam Schiff is a California Congressman who was appointed chairman of the House Intelligence Committee after an all-night drinking party during which someone suggested putting Adam Schiff and the word intelligence in the same sentence would be really funny. He looks like he looks because he has been hollowed out by corruption and is beginning to collapse inward like the mummy at the end of that Brendan Fraser movie, except without the hot babe tied to the table, which was my favorite part, for reasons I don’t fully understand.
Another question comes from Candy, who can usually be found hanging out at Cheetah’s Lounge on Hollywood Boulevard.
Candy asks: “Will Donald Trump be removed from office and, if so, will I lose my job and have to start hooking again.”
Well, Candy, it’s unlikely Trump will be removed from office. But if he is, yes, you will be out of work, and I hope you still have my number.
Finally, a question from Thanos, though not the Marvel Comics supervillain; the other Thanos, who asks: “Why was Chief Justice John Roberts using his eyebrows to send a Morse Code message saying, ‘Please, Lord, make this stop?’”
That was just a little joke the Chief Justice likes to play whenever he finds his life dwindling away in an utterly meaningless waste of public time and money. It always gets a big laugh at the Supreme Court.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-ted-cruz-sums-up-first-day-of-impeachment-trial-with-old-saying-offers-prediction">WATCH: Ted Cruz Sums Up First Day Of Impeachment Trial With ‘Old Saying,’ Offers Prediction</a>

All Your Impeachment Questions Answered [Satire]

The Senate impeachment trial kicked off Tuesday with all the predicted fireworks, including Democratic allegations of a &#8220;cover up&#8221; by Republicans, dire declarations from the impeachment managers and bruising rebukes by the president&#8217;s legal team. Amid all the Capitol Hill commotion, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) stepped in front of cameras to provide a succinct summary of the day Democrats have long anticipated, and threw in a prediction for good measure.
The opening arguments of the Democratic impeachment managers, headed up by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), said Cruz, are best summarized by an &#8220;old saying.&#8221;
&#8220;We&#8217;ve seen one motion after another after another. They&#8217;ve been redundant; they&#8217;ve been making the same arguments,&#8221; Cruz told reporters Tuesday. &#8220;This seems to be a time for Adam Schiff and the House managers to lecture the American people and attack the president.&#8221;
&#8220;But, you know, there&#8217;s an old saying that &#8216;If you have the facts, you bang the facts. If you have the law, you bang the law. If you don&#8217;t have either, you bang the table,'&#8221; said Cruz. &#8220;Well, this afternoon, we&#8217;ve seen a whole lot of table banging.&#8221;
&#8220;And at the end of the day, we&#8217;re in the same spot we were in when we began the day,&#8221; he continued, &#8220;which is the House articles of impeachment that were passed on a partisan basis, they don&#8217;t meet the constitutional standard.&#8221;
Cruz then offered a prediction about the outcome of the trial. &#8220;And that&#8217;s why the end of this process, after a fair proceeding — after hearing the arguments of the House managers, after hearing the arguments of the president — the end of this proceeding is going to be an acquittal because the House managers still can&#8217;t meet the constitutional threshold.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
If you have the facts, you bang the facts. If you have the law, you bang the law. If you don&#39;t have either, you bang the table.
Today, we&#39;ve seen a whole lot of table banging. <a href="https://t.co/ez6HZtvu7y">pic.twitter.com/ez6HZtvu7y</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1219841602945998848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Josh Hammer <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ted-cruz-blasts-democrats-opening-impeachment-demand">reported,</a> Cruz also weighed in on social media Tuesday concerning the Democrats&#8217; demand that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, one of the members of Trump&#8217;s high-powered impeachment team, &#8220;must either disclose any pertinent information he has about Democrats&#8217; substantive impeachment claims or otherwise be dismissed as a Trump defense lawyer at trial.&#8221;
&#8220;You may be a material witness to the charges against President Trump, even though you are also his advocate,&#8221; the Democrats&#8217; impeachment managers wrote in a letter to Cipollone, as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/pat-cipollone-trump-ukraine-scandal-101355">reported</a> by Politico. &#8220;[A]t a minimum, you must disclose all facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with the evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President&#8217;s legal advocate so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues, conflicts, or biases.&#8221;
Cruz, a constitutional attorney who clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, weighed in on the Democrats&#8217; &#8220;absurd request&#8221; on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10157741123607464">Facebook</a>:
<blockquote>Democrats’ opening salvo in impeachment: they demand Trump get rid of his lawyer, Pat Cipollone.
Absurd request.
Unlike the House, the Senate will have a FAIR trial. That means we won’t deny the President his lawyer ON THE DAY the trial starts.
The Sixth Amendment provides the accused the right &#8220;to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.&#8221; Note that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the prosecution; it protects only the accused. Under the standard put forth by the House Democrats today – that any potential fact witness cannot serve as counsel in the impeachment hearing – there is an obvious person who should be disqualified: Adam Schiff.
Schiff, it has been alleged, spoke directly with the so-called &#8220;whistle-blower&#8221; and may even have helped him draft the complaint that launched this entire impeachment.
So, maybe we should disqualify Schiff as a lawyer, and schedule him instead as a witness to explain his role in creating the &#8220;evidence&#8221; in this proceeding?</blockquote>
Hammer notes that the Constitution &#8220;affords no role for the impeachment trial prosecution to impose procedural demands upon the Senate itself,&#8221; citing <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, Section 2, Clause 5</a>  which states that the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment,” and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, Section 3, Clause 6</a>, which specifies that the Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-calls-out-media-over-new-report-schiff-mischaracterized-impeachment-evidence">Trump Calls Out Media Over New Report Schiff Mischaracterized Impeachment Evidence</a>
&nbsp;

Menu