Democrats hoping that former presidential candidate and frequent Trump critic Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) will be a stumbling block for his Republican colleagues during the impeachment trial are undoubtedly disappointed in his response to House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-trial-schedule-released-by-mcconnell-shows-hes-not-playing-games">resolution</a> outlining the proceedings.
While Democrats are taking to various media platforms to express outrage over the Republicans&#8217; plans for handling the trial, accusing McConnell of attempting to “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/impeachment-trial-live-updates/2020/01/21/a52d9a74-3c3c-11ea-b90d-5652806c3b3a_story.html">cover up</a>” the president&#8217;s alleged misconduct by fast-tracking the proceedings, Romney pointed out in a statement issued ahead of the debate Tuesday that the rules set forth by his colleagues &#8220;align closely&#8221; with those established for the impeachment trial of then-President Bill Clinton, rules which were unanimously approved by the Senate.
Among the Democrats alleging Republican treachery is House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who laid it on thick Tuesday. “We are staring down an erosion of the sacred democratic principles for which our founders fought a bloody war of independence,&#8221; declared Schumer, as reported by<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/impeachment-trial-live-updates/2020/01/21/a52d9a74-3c3c-11ea-b90d-5652806c3b3a_story.html"> The Washington Post</a>. &#8220;The McConnell rules seem to be designed by President Trump for President Trump,&#8221; the New York senator added. &#8220;It asks the Senate to rush through as fast as possible and makes getting evidence as hard as possible.&#8221;
But in his statement responding to the Senate Republicans&#8217; resolution, Romney torpedoed the Democrats&#8217; talking point by looking at the precedent set in the Clinton trial. While stressing that he believes the allegations against Trump are &#8220;extremely serious&#8221; and thus require his fellow senators to &#8220;put political biases aside&#8221; and hear the case in &#8220;good faith,&#8221; Romney made clear that he sees no big problem with the rules laid out by McConnell.
&#8220;The allegations outlined in the articles of impeachment passed by the House are extremely serious — did the President abuse his office for personal political gain, and did he obstruct Congress’ investigation by blocking subpoenas?&#8221; Romney said in the statement. &#8220;These allegations demand that the Senate put political biases aside, and make good faith efforts to listen to arguments from both sides and thoroughly review facts and evidence. I have made clear to my colleagues and the public that the Senate should have the opportunity to decide on witnesses following the opening arguments, as occurred in the Clinton trial. The organizing resolution released tonight includes this step, and overall, it aligns closely with the rules package approved 100-0 during the Clinton trial. If attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments, I would oppose those efforts.&#8221;
Romney has since criticized Democrats over their histrionic response to the resolution. &#8220;If everything is an outrage, then nothing is an outrage,&#8221; said the senator, as reported by Manu Raju (via <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/01/21/romney-im-pretty-cool-mcconnells-rules/">Hot Air</a>). Below is the full text of Romney&#8217;s <a href="https://www.romney.senate.gov/romney-statement-start-impeachment-trial">statement</a> responding to the resolution:
<blockquote>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item">
As we approach the impeachment trial of the President, I feel a deep sense of responsibility to the Constitution, to the people of Utah and to the nation. I want to share my thoughts directly with Utahns — the people I was elected to serve in the Senate — about how I plan to approach this process.
Last week, I and all senators swore an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God’ in determining whether the president has committed impeachable offenses that merit his removal from office. Deciding whether or not a sitting president should be removed from office is perhaps the most solemn matter that can ever come before the United States Senate. I enter this task with an open mind and a recognition of my solemn responsibility to fulfill my oath.
The allegations outlined in the articles of impeachment passed by the House are extremely serious — did the President abuse his office for personal political gain, and did he obstruct Congress’ investigation by blocking subpoenas? These allegations demand that the Senate put political biases aside, and make good faith efforts to listen to arguments from both sides and thoroughly review facts and evidence. I have made clear to my colleagues and the public that the Senate should have the opportunity to decide on witnesses following the opening arguments, as occurred in the Clinton trial. The organizing resolution released tonight includes this step, and overall, it aligns closely with the rules package approved 100-0 during the Clinton trial. If attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments, I would oppose those efforts.
I will conclude by noting that this is not a situation anyone would wish upon our country. It is difficult, divisive, and further inflames partisan entrenchment. There is inevitable political pressure from all sides. I have spent — and will continue to spend — many hours in careful deliberation about what this process and its potential outcomes could mean for our country. The best we in the Senate can do is strive to meet the obligations outlined by our founding fathers — to honor our constitutional duty and fulfill our oath to do impartial justice. That is the commitment I make solemnly and in good faith to the people of Utah and our nation.
</div>
</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-trump-kicks-off-impeachment-week-by-reminding-democrats-what-theyve-said-in-the-past-about-impeachment">WATCH: Trump Kicks Off Impeachment Week By Reminding Democrats What They’ve Said In The Past About Impeachment</a>

Mitt Romney

All Eyes On Mitt: Romney’s First Move In Impeachment Trial Disappoints Democrats

Charles Schumer

Impeachment

Mitch McConnell

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is sticking close to the 1999 Senate impeachment rules, inked ahead of then-President Bill Clinton&#8217;s Senate trial, but he&#8217;s instituting a few key changes, including one that will have the Senate voting to admit the evidence compiled in the House Intelligence Committee&#8217;s impeachment inquiry &#8212; something Democrats are suddenly very angry about.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) decried McConnell&#8217;s trial outline as that of a &#8220;rigged&#8221; process, accusing the majority leader of rushing opening arguments, cramming both the prosecution&#8217;s and the defense&#8217;s statements in to barely 48 hours, and of denying the work of the House.
After initial arguments, McConnell has it set up so that Senators will decide which aspects of the House investigation are allowed to come into play in the Senate, <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/mcconnell-impeachment-rules-would-condense-opening-arguments">per Roll Call</a>, meaning that while some testimony &#8212; taken during the House Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee hearings &#8212; might be allowed in, evidence &#8220;discovered&#8221; later, like text messages from Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, won&#8217;t come into play unless Senators vote to allow the presentation of further evidence and additional witness testimony.
In 1999, Schumer pointed out in statements to press made Monday night, the House articles were admitted automatically. But McConnell&#8217;s change is strategic. Democrats, including Schumer and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the House investigator-turned-impeachment manager, want to bolster the House&#8217;s case against the President  &#8212; which even The New York Times admitted is thin &#8212; with a second, fresh case made in the Senate.
Schumer, whose bid to hold the articles of impeachment hostage to force McConnell to agree to, at least, additional witness testimony, failed miserably and publicly, railed against McConnell&#8217;s restrictions.
“After reading his resolution, it’s clear Senator McConnell is hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses and documents and intent on rushing the trial through. On something as important as impeachment, Senator McConnell’s resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace,” Schumer said in a statement released Monday night.
“Sen. McConnell’s proposed rules depart dramatically from the Clinton precedent — in ways that are designed to prevent the Senate and the American people from learning the full truth about President Trump’s actions that warranted his impeachment,” he continued. “The McConnell rules don’t even allow the simple, basic step of admitting the House record into evidence at the trial.”
The House will attempt to bolster their own case, if Senate testimony is not allowed, by issuing subpoena&#8217;s to several new, &#8220;key&#8221; witnesses who could have been called in the initial investigation but were not. Former national security advisor John Bolton is expected to be called to testify in the House by Democrats hopeful that Bolton&#8217;s answers might convince their Senate colleagues to accept witnesses.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) also suggested, last week, that the House could view additional evidence from Parnas &#8212; &#8220;several handwritten notes, emails, encrypted messages, and other documents,&#8221; <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/house-dems-release-new-impeachment-evidence-related-to-indicted-giuliani-associate-098854">according to Politico</a> &#8212; in additional sessions.
But if Democrats were looking for sympathy over the &#8220;unfair&#8221; rules from moderate Republicans, they found none. On Tuesday morning, just before the trial convened in the Senate, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), no fan of President Donald Trump and a regular critic of McConnell, told reporters that he believed the rule changes were fair and designed to encourage expediency, not secrecy.
&nbsp;

Senators Address The Media After Weekly Policy Luncheons

Surprise! Senate Must Vote To Admit House Evidence In Impeachment Trial

The Senate trial over the House Democrats&#8217; two articles of impeachment against President Trump — for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — officially began Thursday, when Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Senators, but the trial begins in earnest Tuesday afternoon with a vote on the procedural rules, followed by the opening arguments from both sides. Here&#8217;s what to expect in the coming days.
The first order of business is the setting of the rules for the trial, the debate over which begins at 1 p.m. ET Tuesday. Though it hasn&#8217;t officially begun yet, the rules debate is already heated.
On Monday, McConnell released the Republicans&#8217; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-trial-schedule-released-by-mcconnell-shows-hes-not-playing-games">resolution</a> outlining the schedule and rules for the impeachment proceedings — and was met with Democrat allegations that Republicans are attempting to fast-track the proceedings in order to &#8220;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/impeachment-trial-live-updates/2020/01/21/a52d9a74-3c3c-11ea-b90d-5652806c3b3a_story.html">cover up</a>&#8221; Trump&#8217;s alleged misconduct.
The Republicans have given the next step the window of 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. on Wednesday morning: the filing of initial motions and responses to those motions by the Democrats&#8217; team of impeachment managers and Trump&#8217;s impeachment team, as outlined in the Senate Republican resolution:
<blockquote>The President and the House of Representatives shall have until 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2020, to file any motions permitted under the rules of impeachment with the exception of motions to subpoena witnesses or documents or any other evidentiary motions. Responses to any such motions shall be filed no later than 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2020. All materials filed pursuant to this paragraph shall be filed with the Secretary and be printed and made available to all parties.</blockquote>
Beginning at 1 p.m. Wednesday, both parties will have a chance to present arguments on the motions. &#8220;Arguments on such motions shall begin at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2020, and each side may determine the number of persons to make its presentation, following which the Senate shall deliberate, if so ordered under the impeachment rules, and vote on any such motions,&#8221; the Republican resolution specifies.
Next will be the opening arguments from each side, which have been given a maximum of 24 hours for each team. The decision to limit the opening arguments to two days total, CNN notes, &#8220;indicates Senate Republicans are pushing to finish the trial as quickly as possible — ahead of the President&#8217;s February 4 State of the Union address.&#8221; The Republican resolution reads:
<blockquote>Following the disposition of such motions, or if no motions are made, then the House of Representatives shall make its presentation in support of the articles of impeachment for a period of time not to exceed 24 hours, over up to 2 session days. Following the House of Representatives’ presentation, the President shall make his presentation for a period not to exceed 24 hours, over up to 2 session days. Each side may determine the number of persons to make its presentation.</blockquote>
Republicans are limiting the total hours for Senators to questions both parties to 16 hours, followed by a maximum of 2 hours of response arguments for each party:
<blockquote>Upon the conclusion of the President’s presentation, Senators may question the parties for a period of time not to exceed 16 hours. Upon the conclusion of questioning by the Senate, there shall be 4 hours of argument by the parties, equally divided, followed by deliberation by the Senate, if so ordered under the impeachment rules, on the question of whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents.</blockquote>
The Senate will then vote on whether or not &#8220;to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents.&#8221;
“Following the disposition of that question, other motions provided under the impeachment rules shall be in order,” the resolution concludes. “If the Senate agrees to allow either the House of Representatives or the President to subpoena witnesses, the witnesses shall first be deposed and the Senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify, pursuant to the impeachment rules. No testimony shall be admissible in the Senate unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose such witnesses.”
The final step will be whether to convict or acquit Trump on the two articles of impeachment.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-trump-kicks-off-impeachment-week-by-reminding-democrats-what-theyve-said-in-the-past-about-impeachment">WATCH: Trump Kicks Off Impeachment Week By Reminding Democrats What They’ve Said In The Past About Impeachment</a>

President Trump

The Senate Impeachment Trial Has Officially Begun; Here’s What To Expect

Donald Trump

Tomorrow will commence the third presidential impeachment trial in the history of the United States Senate. And on the eve of such a rare and solemn institutional undertaking, it is still not entirely clear what exactly President Donald Trump has done to deserve such a fate.
At the outset of this saga, House Democrats spent weeks promoting an oh-so nefarious &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; that transpired during Trump&#8217;s now-infamous July 25 phone call last summer with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. It turns out that abstruse Latinate didn&#8217;t poll-test well — and never mind that such a &#8220;quid pro quo,&#8221; when cabined to a public official&#8217;s lawful exercise of his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-trumps-alleged-impoundment-of-ukraine-money-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-offense">constitutional authority</a>, amounts to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-there-is-one-terrific-impeachment-defense-that-the-white-house-is-not-making">constitutionally protected free speech</a>. Democrats next engaged in the hilariously public floating of bribery — which is actually enumerated as a presidential impeachment criterion in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii">Article II, Section 4</a> of the Constitution — before deciding that they simply lacked the grist to advance such a claim. Democrats ultimately settled on the mealy-mouthed, amorphous gibberish of &#8220;abuse of power&#8221; and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">utterly nonsensical</a>, constitutionally illiterate &#8220;obstruction of Congress&#8221; as their charges of choice.
As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro and I have each <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-todays-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-is-yet-another-waste-of-time">observed</a> countless times since Democrats first glommed onto the Ukraine phone call as possible grounds for impeachment, it is true that actually committing a black-letter crime is not a constitutional requirement to impeach a sitting president. &#8220;High crimes and misdemeanors,&#8221; the catch-all presidential impeachment criterion enumerated in the Constitution after treason and bribery, was a well-known term of art in the English common law. Alexander Hamilton <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">explained</a> in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">The Federalist No. 65</a> that it encompasses &#8220;offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.&#8221;
True, the Hamiltonian language presents a necessarily political and malleable standard. But it is also true that the Constitution&#8217;s Framers did not view everything as a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-stop-calling-everything-impeachable-offense-josh-hammer">potentially impeachable offense</a>. To wit, the Framers <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/">expressly deliberated</a> whether to make the far lesser &#8220;maladministration&#8221; an impeachment criterion before rejecting it out of fear that it could lead to highly partisan impeachment proceedings motivated by either a mere policy disagreement or the raw pursuit of political power. Hamilton certainly understood that, writing in the same Federalist that impeachment would &#8220;seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.&#8221;
Accordingly, even though the actual violation of a law is not constitutionally required, Democrats&#8217; 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. President Andrew Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act — an unambiguously unconstitutional statute, but technically a statutory violation nonetheless. President Bill Clinton, investigated for years by former independent counsel Ken Starr, committed perjury. President Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace before a formal House vote on impeachment, was knee-deep in the Watergate scandal.
What exactly has President Trump done? He acted in a ham-fisted and sloppy manner on a phone call with a foreign leader when it came to the conducting of his foreign policy — an action squarely within his well-established <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-trumps-alleged-impoundment-of-ukraine-money-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-offense">constitutional bailiwick</a>. True, he should not have mentioned Joe Biden by name. But ultimately, Trump tried to attach <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair/">corruption-related strings</a>, however clumsily, to the doling out of one of the most consistently <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/03/11/foreign-aid">politically unpopular</a> items in annual federal budgets: Foreign aid.
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 conscientiously reject the far lesser &#8220;maladministration&#8221; as a possible grounds for impeachment. What&#8217;s worse, House Democrats rushed their process due to political timing and, in their rush, have <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-09/opinion-trump-impeachment-hearings-democrats">fundamentally failed to make their case</a> to the American people. They have <a href="https://theresurgent.com/2020/01/20/democrats-have-failed-at-impeachment-trump-will-remain-president/">failed at impeachment</a>, and they have no one to blame but themselves. And in their recklessness, Democrats have also set a deeply pernicious precedent for the future of the Constitution&#8217;s carefully calibrated separation of powers framework.
Alas, let the trial commence.

House Speaker Pelosi And Senator Schumer Hold News Conference On DACA Case

HAMMER: What Exactly Are They Impeaching Him For, Again?

2020 Election

Adam Schiff

Constitution

Democratic Party

Federalist

Jerry Nadler

Joe Biden

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has reportedly created a &#8220;kill switch&#8221; for President Donald Trump&#8217;s upcoming Senate impeachment trial that would allow for the president&#8217;s legal team to either seek an immediate verdict or a dismissal of the case if the trial descends into a circus spectacle.
&#8220;I am familiar with the resolution as it stood a day or two ago,&#8221; Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Axios. &#8220;My understanding is that the resolution will give the president&#8217;s team the option to either move to judgment or to move to dismiss at a meaningful time&#8230;&#8221;
&#8220;Hawley added that in the most recent draft of the organizing resolution he saw there was an option for the president&#8217;s counsel to make a motion in multiple places, including at the beginning of the proceedings,&#8221; Axios <a href="https://www.axios.com/draft-mcconnell-rules-vote-dismiss-impeachment-trump-d381f127-56a8-49a5-81a5-638e52cbdf14.html">reported</a>. &#8220;Hawley added that if the final resolution does not allow Trump&#8217;s lawyers the option to dismiss or move to judgment at a &#8216;meaningful point&#8217; in the trial, he would be &#8216;very, very surprised,&#8217; and might not vote for the organizing resolution.&#8221;
Hawley told Axios that if the option to dismiss the case was not available to the Trump legal team that it would give House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) too much power over the proceedings.
On Sunday, Hawley confirmed those remarks in a tweet, <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1218899563429408770">writing</a>: &#8220;.@realDonaldTrump deserves the right during Senate trial to ask for a verdict or move to dismiss &#8211; otherwise trial will become endless circus run by Adam Schiff&#8221;
Trump has endorsed the idea on Twitter, writing: &#8220;Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, “no pressure” Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, “no pressure” Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216448547777908737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 12, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
However, some top Republicans in the Senate are not hot on the idea of dismissing the trial because they believe that they have a solid case and that a motion to dismiss the trial could look weak.
“Our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/republicans-dismissal-impeachment-charges.html">said</a>. “They think both sides need to be heard. They believe the president needs to be heard for the first time in a fair setting.”
A source close to McConnell told Breitbart News: “My pal Cocaine Mitch is again proving his mettle when it comes to outmaneuvering leftist Democrats with this kill switch. If they even think about stepping out of line and being unfair in the slightest, it’s time to engage said kill switch and end this nonsense once and for all.”
Breitbart News noted that the term &#8220;Cocaine Mitch&#8221; comes from &#8220;a losing GOP primary candidate in West Virginia [who] once derisively nicknamed [McConnell] &#8216;Cocaine Mitch&#8217;—a nickname [McConnell has] since embraced as indicative of his tough persona—has a history of outsmarting Democrats in the Senate.&#8221;
Former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said last week that he expects the trial to last approximately two weeks, adding, &#8220;God help us if it lasts six weeks.&#8221;

McConnell Creates ‘Kill Switch’ To End Impeachment If It Becomes ‘Circus Run By Adam Schiff’

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) suggested Tuesday that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is under the sway of Russian interests because he won&#8217;t bend to Democrats&#8217; demands to include witnesses in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.
Despite having no evidence to back up her claims, Pelosi reportedly suggested that McConnell has &#8220;Russian connections&#8221; during discussions with fellow Democrats ahead of Wednesday&#8217;s House vote to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, according to sources that spoke to CNN. She made similar claims during interviews over the weekend.
The <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/pelosi-floats-russia-conspiracy-theory-about-mcconnell/">Washington Free Beacon reports</a> that Pelosi floated the Russian conspiracy theory about McConnell during closed-door sessions with her caucus over the weekend as a way of explaining away her and Sen. Chuck Schumer&#8217;s (D-NY) failure to force McConnell to the bargaining table.
Pelosi &#8220;mused that sometimes she wonders whether McConnell has Russian connections,&#8221; CNN said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Pelosi told her colleagues in private that Mitch McConnell is acting like a rogue Senate leader, as she’s said before. She mused that sometimes she wonders whether McConnell has Russian connections, per attendees. <a href="https://t.co/vy2mHHLSlW">https://t.co/vy2mHHLSlW</a>
&mdash; Manu Raju (@mkraju) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1217116932228423680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Pelosi&#8217;s reference to &#8220;Burisma&#8221; is a call back to an incident that came to light last week. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/russian-hackers-burisma-ukraine.html">According to the New York Times</a>, evidence has surfaced that Russians hacked the Ukrainian oil and gas company, most famous for putting Hunter Biden on its board, perhaps at the behest of then-Vice President Joe Biden. There is, of course, no evidence linking Trump, the White House, or Mitch McConnell to the hack, and, as the NYT notes, its not even clear what the hackers were after (though given the timing, its likely they were looking for information damaging to the Bidens).
On Sunday, Pelosi told ABC&#8217;s George Stephanopolous that she believes Russians may try to hack the elections a second time in 2020, adding that she believes President Donald Trump is in “complete denial” over Vladimir Putin&#8217;s efforts to influence American democracy.
But after lighting into Trump, Pelosi again repeated allegations that McConnell is under some sort of Russian influence.
“Sometimes I wonder about Mitch McConnell too,” Pelosi told Stephanopolous. “What’s he — why is he an accomplice to all of that? He has resisted sources going in a manner commensurate with the threat for state agencies, whichever they are in a state, could be the secretary of state or whatever, to protect our infrastructure, our critical infrastructure of elections.”
Despite labeling McConnell &#8220;Moscow Mitch,&#8221; there&#8217;s been little actual evidence presented that McConnell is somehow laboring under instructions from superiors in the Kremlin, and a report, submitted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, comissioned by Democrats, found no evidence that any Trump campaign or transition official actively collaborated with the Russians to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. McConnell isn&#8217;t even mentioned in that report.
McConnell responded to the &#8220;Moscow Mitch&#8221; moniker when it first appeared over the summer, likening the allegations that he is in league with Putin to accusations of treason.
Pelosi will finally hold a vote Wednesday to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial, but noted even Wednesday morning, in a press conference held to announce the &#8220;impeachment managers&#8221; &#8212; the prosecutorial team that will present the case against President Trump for the House Democrats &#8212; that it was McConnell who was being unreasonable in not submitting to Democrats&#8217; demands that the Senate trial include witness testimony, not House Democrats who hold no sway over the Senate process.
&nbsp;

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi Suggests Mitch McConnell Under Russian Control, Says Senate Leader Has &#8216;Russian Connections&#8217;

Russia

Last night, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a constitutional attorney by training, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRvUG6NTn78&amp;feature=youtu.be">joined</a> “Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler” on One America News Network to discuss the latest twists and turns in Democrats&#8217; ongoing partisan impeachment saga, as well as to recap the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">deeply flawed nature</a> of House Democrats&#8217; two finalized articles of impeachment.
&#8220;House Democrats emerged from a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning to finally announce the much-delayed vote on sending their articles of impeachment against President Trump — passed nearly a month ago without a single Republican vote — to the Senate,&#8221; The Daily Wire&#8217;s James Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/defeated-democrats-announce-vote-on-sending-impeachment-articles-but-not-wholl-be-running-the-show">reported</a> earlier today. &#8220;The big vote will take place Wednesday, though one particularly important detail has yet to be determined: who exactly from the House is going to be presenting the Democrats’ case against the duly elected president during the Senate trial,&#8221; Barrett continued.
In a <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge/">New York Post op-ed</a> last month, Hammer explained why House Democrats&#8217; second article of impeachment, &#8220;obstruction of Congress,&#8221; is &#8220;an utterly ridiculous impeachment charge&#8221;:
<blockquote>
Our tripartite separation-of-powers edifice was hardly devised for the purpose of ensuring amiability between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. On the contrary, the Framers envisioned a national government in which the three branches existed in a state of continuous, unyielding tension with one another.
In particular, the two political branches — Congress and the executive branch — were meant to be jealous guardians of their own ambits and spheres of influence. Ceaseless tussling between them was to be the norm. “Ambition,” James Madison told us in Federalist 51, “must be made to counteract ambition.” &#8230;
That is how our separation of powers is supposed to function — in a state far closer to animosity than to geniality. Which is precisely why House Democrats alleging “obstruction of Congress” as an article of impeachment makes no sense.
</blockquote>
Wheeler began the segment last night by asking about that deeply problematic second article of impeachment. Wheeler noted that the Democrats accused the president of &#8220;obstructi[ng]&#8221; Congress without even waiting for the judiciary to weigh in with respect to congressional subpoenas issued for Trump administration officials. Hammer agreed and also reiterated, in similar fashion to the Post op-ed, that the article of impeachment is also non-sensical from the broader perspective of structural constitutionalism:
<blockquote>[T]his impeachment charge is so risible. &#8230; The entire separation of powers construct is built around tension. The three branches of government — the legislative branch, the executive branch, the judicial branch — are not &#8230; intended to exist in some state of harmony. &#8230; No, that&#8217;s not what the Framers envisioned.
James Madison, in The Federalist No. 51, maybe the most famous Federalist Paper of them all, clearly says &#8220;ambition must be made to counteract ambition.&#8221; They&#8217;re supposed to be zealous guardians of their own idiosyncratic spheres of influence. They&#8217;re supposed to butt heads. They&#8217;re supposed to use all the various tools at their disposal to push back and try to encroach upon each other&#8217;s spheres. They&#8217;re [each] supposed to want to be the most dominant branch. Each one is supposed to not get along with the others. &#8230;</blockquote>
Wheeler agreed, noting that the second impeachment charge is therefore &#8220;both practically and philosophically ridiculous.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Impeachment Proceedings to Begin in the Senate" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yRvUG6NTn78?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hammer OANN screen grab 1.13.20

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: A Senate Impeachment Trial Looms

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reportedly will not force a Senate vote on whether or not to dismiss the articles of impeachment ahead of the Senate trial, possibly to help &#8220;vulnerable&#8221; GOP senators facing tough re-election campaigns in 2020, but more likely because McConnell lacks the 51 votes necessary to dismiss the issue out of hand.
President Donald Trump expressed his desire to see McConnell hold a vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment before a Senate trial begins over the weekend, tweeting that, &#8220;Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, &#8216;no pressure&#8217; Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree!&#8221;
But to get dismissal, McConnell would need 51 votes, and given how difficult it was for the Kentucky Republican to marshal his troops behind voting &#8220;no&#8221; on allowing witnesses to testify during the impeachment trial &#8212; something Democrats tried to force by withholding the articles of impeachment for weeks &#8212; it&#8217;s unlikely he&#8217;d be able to form a concrete coalition for dismissal ahead of the start of Trump&#8217;s Senate trial, which could convene as early as next week.
<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/478080-gop-leadership-there-arent-51-votes-to-dismiss-trump-articles-of-impeachment">The Hill reports</a> that McConnell does not have the votes right now, and would have to wheel and deal to get the simple majority &#8212; and that&#8217;s only if &#8220;moderate&#8221; GOP Senators like Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and even Mitt Romney (R-UT) would be willing to hear him out. Collins and Murkowski aren&#8217;t even a lock on witnesses; the pair said that, while they plan to vote &#8220;no&#8221; on the Democrats&#8217; proposal to allow testimony at the Senate trial before it begins, they reserve the right to vote &#8220;yes&#8221; on a measure to allow witnesses after both parties, the White House and the House Intelligence Committee, make their opening statements.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates-latest-news-n1065706/ncrd1114846#liveBlogHeader">told MSNBC</a> that he has a coalition of at least five Senators &#8212; the ones mentioned above, plus Colorado&#8217;s Cory Gardner &#8212; who will stand firm against McConnell if the Senate Majority Leader presses dismissing the articles of impeachment without first putting the issue to trial.
&#8220;I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss&#8230;.Certainly there aren&#8217;t 51 votes for a motion to dismiss,&#8221; Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) told reporters Monday.
MSNBC also reported Tuesday that McConnell will hold off on any vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment, both before and during the Senate trial, to avoid putting &#8220;vulnerable&#8221; GOP Senators facing re-election in a tight spot, in case Democrats, now resigned to the idea of an acquittal and, possibly, a trial where they can&#8217;t repair holes left in their case from the House inquiry, are planning to use a dismissal vote as campaign fodder.
&#8220;It&#8217;s pretty clear to me that this is no longer about convicting and removing Donald Trump as president,&#8221; Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told reporters. &#8220;This is about Chuck Schumer getting 2020 Republican incumbents in two tough voting situations. So I think recognizing that that&#8217;s his goal, I think it won&#8217;t surprise you that we&#8217;re thinking about that too, and how to avoid that as much as possible.&#8221;

Report: McConnell Won&#8217;t Force Dismissal Vote In Senate Impeachment Trial Despite President&#8217;s Wishes

On his top-rated talk radio program Thursday, conservative commentator and host Rush Limbaugh had one big question for Democrats in light of recent events: &#8220;When are you people gonna get tired of losing?&#8221; As a follow-up to his trolling spin on Trump&#8217;s &#8220;tired of winning&#8221; mantra, Limbaugh pointed to a statement from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in which she helpfully makes the case for the Senate to dismiss the Democrats&#8217; impeachment articles.
&#8220;I have a question for the Democrats,&#8221; Limbaugh said at the top of the impeachment-themed segment Thursday. &#8220;When are you people gonna get tired of losing? Do you even realize that you are losing, and you are losing magnificently, and you are losing in ways that you don’t even see?&#8221;
&#8220;Look what happened to Trump’s improval numbers — approval numbers — during impeachment,&#8221; he explained, adding, &#8220;By the way, we could call them &#8216;improval&#8217; numbers because that’s exactly what happened.
&#8220;During the impeachment, Trump’s approval rating shot up six points on average. The impeachment hearings were so absurd,&#8221; he said laughing.
&#8220;Pelosi won’t even send the articles to the Senate, and senators — the Democrats — are demanding more witnesses because Pelosi didn’t make a case,&#8221; the host continued. &#8220;But, at the end of all of this, I don’t care what you say about it, and I don’t care what you do process-wise. If she sends them over there, there’s going to be an acquittal. I maintain to you that that is the last thing that she or any of the Democrats want.&#8221;
To illustrate the point, Rush pointed to Pelosi&#8217;s press conference Thursday at which she effectively explained why the Senate dismissing the articles would be better for everyone.
&#8220;In terms of impeachment, you all keep asking me the same question; I keep giving you the same answer,&#8221; Pelosi said at the presser. &#8220;As I said right from the start, we need to see the arena in which we are sending our managers. Is that too much to ask? You probably heard one way or another some of them have suggested they might want to &#8216;dismiss.&#8217; Dismiss equals cover-up. Dismiss equals admission.&#8221;
After playing the clip, Limbaugh offered Pelosi some advice. &#8220;Miss Pelosi, I realize I’m not as smart as you are, but if you have two options — you send ’em over there and you get an acquittal or the Senate dismisses and you get a chance to run around and say, &#8216;That’s an admission of guilt. These partisan Republicans don’t even want the trial. They’ve dismissed the charges. Trump’s guilty&#8217; — which of those two options is the better? Certainly not acquittal!&#8221; he said.
&#8220;She’s just made the case for advocating that the Senate dismiss the charges,&#8221; Rush stressed. &#8220;Her own language: &#8216;Dismiss equals cover-up. Dismiss equals admission.&#8217; She should be pushing for a dismissal because the alternative is an acquittal, and an acquittal does not help her. It does not help the Democrats in the 2020 presidential campaign. It doesn’t help any of those candidates. It doesn’t help the media.&#8221;
&#8220;After all of this — after three years of Trump colluding with Russia and now colluding with Ukraine and having mean ideas about Hunter Biden — acquitted, not guilty?&#8221; Limbaugh continued. &#8220;That’s the last thing they want. She should be pushing the Turtle to dismiss the charges based on what she just said here. &#8216;Dismiss equals admission.&#8217; There’s your solution, Madam Speaker! There is your answer. She should be pushing for a dismissal of charges and then run around and say, &#8216;The Senate knows Trump’s guilty, and that’s why they dismissed the charges ’cause they don’t have the guts to do a trial.'&#8221;
Limbaugh eventually cut to another clip of Pelosi from the press conference. &#8220;I’ll send them over when I’m ready, and that will probably be soon,&#8221; she said. &#8220;You know, he said, &#8216;If you don’t send them over, I’m gonna pass a Mexico-U.S.-Canada (snickers) trade agreement.&#8217; Okay. Uh, but, uh, we want to see what they’re willing to do and the manner in which they will do it. But we will not let them say, &#8216;Oh, this is just like Clinton. Fair is fair.&#8217; It’s not. Documents, documentation, witnesses, facts, truth. That’s what they’re afraid of.&#8221;
&#8220;We’re not afraid of anything,&#8221; Limbaugh replied. &#8220;You don’t have a case! The very idea that you are demanding new witnesses in the Senate means you don’t have a case, and the Turtle is right.&#8221;
Transcript via <a href="https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/09/are-you-getting-tired-of-losing-yet-democrats/">RushLimbaugh.com</a>

Limbaugh: Pelosi Just Made The Case For Dismissing The Impeachment Articles

Rush Limbaugh

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell signed on as a co-sponsor to Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) resolution to change the Senate’s rules to allow a vote to dismiss the Democrats’ two articles of impeachment if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fails to submit them within 25 days. In response, actress and progressive activist Alyssa Milano — who has been one of Hollywood&#8217;s more vocal critics of President Trump and Republicans — issued an exasperated, F-bomb-filled social media post lamenting the Democrats&#8217; loss of &#8220;focus&#8221; on impeachment amid their attempt to limit Trump&#8217;s authority in handling Iran.
&#8220;F***. F***. F***. This is what happens when we pivot our focus to Iran: McConnell is backing a resolution to change the Senate’s rules to allow for lawmakers to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump before the House sends them over,&#8221;  Milano <a href="https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1215376340381134848">tweeted</a> Thursday, linking to an article on McConnell backing Hawley&#8217;s measure to allow a dismissal of the articles if Pelosi withholds them for too long.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. 
This is what happens when we pivot our focus to Iran:
McConnell is backing a resolution to change the Senate’s rules to allow for lawmakers to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump before the House sends them over. <a href="https://t.co/OGwGUHIDda">https://t.co/OGwGUHIDda</a>
&mdash; Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) <a href="https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1215376340381134848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mcconnell-signs-on-to-resolution-to-dismiss-articles-of-impeachment-if-not-received-in-25-days">The Daily Wire</a> reported, McConnell addressed the Democrats&#8217; delay in handing over the impeachment articles on the Senate floor Thursday, slamming Pelosi for spending &#8220;twelve weeks undermining the institution of the presidency with an historically unfair and subjective impeachment and now, for the sequel, they’ve come after the institution of the Senate as well.&#8221;
&#8220;When you take a step back, what has really happened over the past three weeks? When you step back from the political noise and the pundits discussing ‘leverage’ that never existed, what have House Democrats actually done?&#8221; asked the majority leader. &#8220;This is what they have done: They have initiated one of the most grave and most unsettling processes in our Constitution and then refused to allow a resolution. The Speaker began something that she herself predicted would be ‘so divisive to the country’ and now she is unilaterally saying it cannot move forward towards a resolution.&#8221;
The resolution would allow the Senate to dismiss the articles with a simple majority vote and ratchets up the pressure from both sides of the aisle on Pelosi to abandon her delay gambit. Among the Democrats calling on Pelosi to turn over the articles is Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-dianne-feinstein-tells-pelosi-to-send-over-impeachment-articles-i-dont-see-what-good-delay-does">said</a> earlier this week, “If we’re going to do it, she should send them over. I don’t see what good delay does.”
Ahead of the Democrats&#8217; vote Thursday on a War Powers Resolution intended to limit Trump&#8217;s military actions involving Iran — a resolution that passed but that Republicans have dismissed as &#8220;toothless&#8221; — Trump mocked &#8220;Crazy Nancy&#8221; and pointed out that impeaching him has apparently lost the alleged &#8220;urgency&#8221; Democrats once invoked.
“Hope that all House Republicans will vote against Crazy Nancy Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution,” Trump tweeted ahead of the War Powers Resolution vote Thursday. “Also, remember her ‘speed &amp; rush’ in getting the Impeachment Hoax voted on &amp; done. Well, she never sent the Articles to the Senate. Just another Democrat fraud. Presidential Harassment!”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-targets-pelosi-ahead-of-vote-on-toothless-war-powers-resolution">Trump Targets Pelosi Ahead Of Vote On ‘Toothless’ War Powers Resolution</a>

Alyssa Milano

Alyssa Milano Explodes Over Senate Impeachment Move, Blames Iran Showdown

Iran

Iraq

The following is satirical.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has announced he now has enough votes to set the rules for an impeachment trial. As those of you without anything more important to do may remember, House Democrats impeached President Donald Trump for some damn thing or other then <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-pelosi-starts-impeachment-debate-by-reminding-everyone-how-to-say-pledge-of-allegiance-stresses-one-key-word">said the pledge of allegiance</a> and made speeches about how urgent everything was and finally went home for the holidays and put the whole thing out of their minds because, really, who cares?
The Democrats have since refused to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial because they’re just too embarrassed, but McConnell says if they ever get around to whatever it is they’re up to instead of governing, he’ll be ready with rules.
The rules for the trial will include:
When the articles of impeachment are first introduced, there will be no laughing at the fact that they don’t even charge Trump with any crimes, although some smirking will be tolerated and senior Republicans will be permitted to roll their eyes and snort quietly.
Every time someone says the word Ukraine, lawmakers will drink a shot of whiskey until they either pass out or start to talk like Joe Biden, whichever comes first.
If Democrat Senators declare that any of this nonsense represents some sort of Constitutional crisis, Republican Senators will not be permitted to grab their crotches and shout “Constitutional crisis this!” although if they drop their trousers and moon the Democrats, Chief Justice John Roberts will pretend he didn’t see it and move on.
Before voting to acquit Trump, Senators will be required to pretend to have taken the whole process seriously either by scratching their chins and nodding in a thoughtful manner, or by saying, “I take this seriously,” or “This is very serious,” or any other similar phrase they can manage to get through without laughing.
After the acquittal, Democrats will be forced to run through the Republicans’ legs while being hit with paddles.
And finally, whenever Democrats start droning on about something during the trial, Republicans will take the opportunity to confirm more federal judges.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-nancy-pelosi-got-the-idea-to-withhold-impeachment-articles-from-cnn">Report: Nancy Pelosi Got The Idea To Withhold Impeachment Articles From CNN</a>

McConnell Delighted To Set Fun Rules For Hilarious Impeachment Trial [Satire]

The Democrats&#8217; effort to forestall the Senate half of the impeachment process may have backfired, according to reports from outlets in Washington, D.C. With the extra time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has reportedly whipped enough votes to block Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer&#8217;s (D-NY) bid to force witness testimony in the Senate impeachment trial.
<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477045-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump">The Hill reports Tuesday</a> that McConnell is confident that he has at least 51 votes &#8212; a simple majority &#8212; against allowing witnesses to give testimony in front of the Senate, blocking a Democratic effort to plug holes in their case for impeaching President Donald Trump, something Democrats in the House had been pushing for with the help of Senate Democratic leadership.
It seems the House Democrats&#8217; decision to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate until McConnell agreed to a trial that involves witnesses worked against them, giving McConnell time to convince even moderate Republicans that a Senate trial should operate according to the rules crafted by Schumer and others back in 1998, when then-President Bill Clinton was on trial.
&#8220;Two key moderate senators, <a class="rollover-people-link" href="https://thehill.com/people/susan-collins" data-nid="188229">Susan Collins</a> (R-Maine) and <a class="rollover-people-link" href="https://thehill.com/people/lisa-murkowski" data-nid="188289">Lisa Murkowski</a> (R-Alaska), on Monday evening backed McConnell’s position that the Senate should follow the precedent of the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial and defer until later in the process the question of calling additional witnesses,&#8221; the Hill reported Tuesday.
Collins told reporters that she supports using the 1998 rules, specifically, adding that she felt witnesses should only be allowed if, after both the House Democrats and the White House present their opening arguments, that specific questions remain.
In a statement, Collin&#8217;s noted that the bipartisan Senate agreement, inked during the Clinton trial, worked well and there seems to be no reason to improve upon the system: &#8220;The process moved to a period during which the Senate debated and voted that three witnesses should be deposed. I believe that this process — the Clinton approach — worked well.&#8221;
Murkowski attacked the House specifically, questioning why Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had yet to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, suggesting that she can&#8217;t determine whether witnesses are needed until she has a full accounting from Pelosi&#8217;s caucus.
“We don’t have anything to get to? So do you have any interesting news for me on that? Like when we might be able to get articles?” Murkowski told reporters Monday. &#8220;I don’t think there is any decision on [accepting testimony from former national security advisor John] Bolton because we don’t have articles.&#8221;
Democrats have pushed for witnesses after polling revealed independents aren&#8217;t convinced the Democrats&#8217; case against the President is airtight. Even such mainstream media outlets as the New York Times complained that Democrats failed to prove, conclusively, that Trump issued a quid-pro-quo to Ukrainian officials, withholding foreign aid until the Ukrainians agreed to launch an investigation into whether former Vice President Joe Biden abused his power when he directed Ukrainian prosecutors away from an oil and gas company that employed his son, Hunter.
McConnell has been adamant about using the 1999 rules &#8212; a proposition he reiterated in interviews last week.
“The Senate does not bob along on the current of every news cycle,” McConnell said in an address on the Senate floor. “In 1999, every single U.S. senator agreed to establish basic parameters for the start of the trial up front and be reserved mid-trial questions such as witnesses until later. The vote was 100-0.&#8221;
Pelosi has not indicated when she plans to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, and House Democrats are now, it seems, suggesting that additional articles could be added to the case stemming from the White House&#8217;s decision to launch a strike, killing Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.

Report: McConnell Has The Votes To Block Witnesses In Senate Impeachment Trial

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell praised U.S. military forces on Friday during a speech on the Senate floor for killing Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
McConnell highlighted some of the horrific acts of terrorism that Soleimani was responsible for around the world, including the deaths of hundreds of U.S. service members.
Soleimani was killed on Thursday along with top Iraqi paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, who headed the Iranian-linked Popular Mobilization Forces, when an American MQ-9 Reaper drone targeted a convoy that were carrying the two terrorist leaders as they left Baghdad International Airport.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This morning, Iran’s master terrorist is dead. The architect and chief engineer for the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism has been removed from the battlefield at the hand of the United States military. <a href="https://t.co/EfERQOYThW">pic.twitter.com/EfERQOYThW</a>
&mdash; Leader McConnell (@senatemajldr) <a href="https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1213162509743640581?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Transcript provided via Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell&#8217;s office:
This morning, Iran’s master terrorist is dead.
The architect and chief engineer for the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism has been removed from the battlefield at the hand of the United States military.
No man alive was more directly responsible for the deaths of more American servicemembers than Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the Quds Force within Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Soleimani’s schemes and his agents killed hundreds of American servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan. He personally oversaw the state-sponsored terrorism that Iran used to kill our sons and daughters.
And as we’ve seen in recent days and weeks, he and his terrorists posed an ongoing and growing threat to American lives and American interests.
Soleimani made it his life’s work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for “death to America” and “death to Israel” and turn them into action.
But this terrorist mastermind was not just a threat to the United States and Israel. For more than a decade he masterminded Iran’s malevolent and destabilizing work throughout the entire Middle East. He created, sustained, and directed terrorist proxies everywhere from Yemen to Iraq to Syria to Lebanon.
Innocents were killed. These sovereign countries were destabilized.
In Syria, this leading terrorist and his agents acted as strategists, enablers, and accomplices to Bashar al-Assad’s brutal repression and slaughter of the Syrian people.
In Iraq, his violence expanded Iran’s influence at the expense of Iraqis themselves. His dark, sectarian vision disenfranchised countless Sunni Arabs and paved the way for the rise of ISIS.
And with ISIS largely defeated, Soleimani and his agents again turned their sights on controlling the Iraqi people, who through massive protests are rejecting not only a corrupt government but also Iran’s influence over it. And once again, there were Iran and its proxies, facilitating violence against these peaceful protesters.
For too long, this evil man operated without constraint, and countless innocents have suffered for it. Now his terrorist leadership has been ended.
Now – predictably enough, in this political environment – the operation that led to Soleimani’s death may prove controversial or divisive.
Although I anticipate and welcome a debate about America’s interests and foreign policy in the Middle East, I recommend that all senators wait to review the facts and hear from the administration before passing much public judgment on this operation and its potential consequences.
The administration will be briefing staff today on the situation in Iraq. We are working to arrange a classified briefing for all senators early next week.
For my part, I have spoken to the Secretary of Defense and I am encouraged by the steps the U.S. military is taking to defend American personnel and interests from a growing Iranian threat.
I know I speak for the entire Senate when I say that my prayers are with all American diplomats, personnel, and brave servicemembers serving in Iraq and the Middle East.
I am grateful for their courageous service to protect our nation.
Right from the outset of this new year, it is already clear that 2020 will require the Senate and our whole nation to redouble our resolve to keep America safe in this troubled world.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speaking at a

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: ‘Iran’s Master Terrorist Is Dead’

Terrorism

Speaking on the U.S. Senate floor on Friday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) emphatically rejected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s (D-CA) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold">procedural gambit</a> to influence and dictate the rules of a prospective Senate impeachment trial.
&#8220;Their turn is over. They’ve done enough damage. It’s the Senate’s turn now to render sober judgment,&#8221; said McConnell, as <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-impasse-deepens-as-mcconnell-rejects-pelosi-bid-to-shape-trial-their-turn-is-over">reported</a> by Fox News.
Earlier in the speech, McConnell lambasted House Democrats&#8217; &#8220;short-term partisan rage,&#8221; according to a full copy of the majority leader&#8217;s remarks obtained by The Daily Wire:
<blockquote>The Senate will soon have to address some of the deepest institutional questions contemplated by our Constitution. We’ll have to decide whether we are going to safeguard core governing traditions or let short-term partisan rage overcome them. &#8230;</blockquote>
McConnell continued, referring to Pelosi&#8217;s ultimate decision to delay formal transmission of the House&#8217;s articles of impeachment as the fruition a &#8220;sad spectacle.&#8221;
<blockquote>[U]ltimately House Democrats cared more about attacking President Trump than keeping their promises. So they rushed through a slapdash investigation. They decided not to bother with the standard legal processes for pursuing witnesses and evidence. &#8230;
[J]ust before the holidays, this sad spectacle took another unusual turn: As soon as the partisan impeachment votes had finished, the prosecutors began to develop cold feet. Instead of sending the articles to the Senate, they flinched.
That’s right: The same people who’d just spent weeks screaming that impeachment was so serious and so urgent that it could not even wait for due process now decided it could wait indefinitely while they checked the political winds and looked for new talking points.</blockquote>
McConnell concluded: &#8220;Their turn is over. They have done enough damage. It’s the Senate’s turn now — to render sober judgment as the framers envisioned. But we can’t hold a trial without the articles. The Senate’s own rules don’t provide for that. So, for now, we are content to continue the ordinary business of the Senate while House Democrats continue to flounder. For now.&#8221;
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) responded harshly, as also <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-impasse-deepens-as-mcconnell-rejects-pelosi-bid-to-shape-trial-their-turn-is-over">reported</a> by Fox News: &#8220;Will we fulfill our duty to conduct a fair impeachment trial of the president of the United States or will we not?&#8221; asked the veteran New York politician. &#8220;That is most pressing question facing this Senate. The country just saw McConnell’s answer to that question. The answer is no.&#8221;
&#8220;Never, never in the history of our country has there been an impeachment trial in which the Senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses, yet the Republican leader seems intent on violating that precedent and denying critical evidence to this body and to the American people,&#8221; Schumer eventually added.
As previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold">noted</a> by The Daily Wire, Pelosi has delayed the formal transmission of House Democrats&#8217; partisan articles of impeachment while she attempts to extract procedural concessions from McConnell and Senate Republicans as to how a prospective Senate impeachment trial is conducted. In a New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">op-ed</a> last month, I defended the legality of Pelosi&#8217;s move while nonetheless castigating her:
<blockquote>Thorny legal issues aside, ­Pelosi’s gambit lays bare the brazen hypocrisy of the sanctimonious “norm”-worshippers. Most of Trump’s purportedly grievous sins pale in comparison to the destructive and ­destabilizing nature of Pelosi’s transmission delay — not to mention the unfair and underhanded nature of the proceedings in her own chamber.
The president may not have an explicit constitutional right to a Senate trial. But if Democrats really cared about rule of law and good order, they would have allowed the Framers’ process to unfold as it was supposed to do. Their delay tactics merely expose the frivolity of their Trump-induced mass hysteria.</blockquote>

McConnell Rejects Pelosi’s Attempt To Dictate Rules Of Senate Impeachment Trial

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently took aim at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for saying he will not be an “impartial juror” during the impeachment trial of President Trump.
“Let the American people hear it loud and clear, the Republican leader said, proudly, ‘I’m not an impartial juror. I’m not impartial about this at all.’ That is an astonishing admission of partisanship,” Schumer said in a floor speech before the Senate left on a two-week vacation.
Schumer’s comments imply that the Senate should serve as an impartial jury, exactly like a criminal trial. But it simply isn’t that — and the Founders never meant otherwise.
The Constitution says this: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” And the Senate is, by design, political — and thus, not impartial.
Schumer knows that, and he said exactly the same thing as McConnell in the 1990s when the Senate mulled the removal of President Clinton, a Democrat.
In several TV appearances in 1998 and 1999 reviewed by CNN’s KFile, “Schumer noted that senators had previously formed opinions heading into the trial and that the Senate was ‘not like a jury box,’” CNN reported.
After Schumer’s old comments emerged, a spokesman for the New York Democrat told CNN in an email on Friday that “his statements came after the conclusion of the Starr investigation.”
From the spokesman: “These quotes all came after the Starr investigation, which included testimony from key witnesses including President Clinton, had concluded and been made public for months and as Sen. Schumer was in the anomalous position of having already voted on impeachment in both the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor … As is reflected in these quotes, Schumer believed then and still believes now that all of the facts must be allowed to come out and then a decision can be made — in stark contrast to the Republicans today in both the House and Senate who have worked to prevent all the facts and evidence from coming out.”
Of course he does — this time around. But the Senate does not act like an impartial jury. Lawmakers have been elected by voters to serve their interests, and they did just that when Clinton was impeached — every single Democrat in the Senate voted to acquit, despite definitive proof Clinton had committed perjury.
Schumer also acknowledged that senators were not jurors during an appearance on CNN’s “Larry King Live” in January 1999.
Here’s CNN’s transcript of that interview:
“We have a pre-opinion,” Schumer said, citing himself and two newly elected Republican senators who had voted on impeachment in 1998 as members of the House of Representatives who said they would vote in the Senate. “This is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.”
“So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it’s not a jury box?” King asked Schumer.
“Many do,” Schumer responded. “And then they change. In fact, it’s also not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don’t have jurors called and lobbied and things like that. I mean, it’s quite different than a jury. And we’re also the judge.”
After Republicans complained, Schumer defended his stance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“The Republican National Committee put out a statement saying that you were a House member on the Judiciary Committee, you announced that you would not impeach the president of the United States,” host Tim Russert asked. “That therefore, you are not an impartial juror in the Senate and should recuse yourself.”
Schumer responded that the Senate was not like a judicial body.
“Right,” Schumer said. “But let’s remember this, Tim: The Founding Fathers — whose wisdom just knocks my socks off every day, it really does — set this process up to be in the Senate, not at the Supreme Court, not in some judicial body.”
“Every day, for instance, hundreds of people call us up and lobby us on one side and the other. You can’t do that with a juror,” he added. “The standard is different. It’s supposed to be a little bit judicial and a little bit legislative-political. That’s how it’s been.”
But this time around, Schumer doesn’t think that anymore.
Pretty convenient.
*Joseph Curl ran the Drudge Report from 2010 to 2014 and covered the White House for a dozen years. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter at @JosephCurl. A version of this article ran previously in The Washington Times.

The 2016 Democratic National Convention

CURL: Democrats Say Senate Must Act As ‘Jury’ During Impeachment Trials. It Doesn’t, Because It Isn’t.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), often a &#8220;wild card&#8221; for Republicans looking to keep their caucus together, <a href="https://www.mainepublic.org/post/collins-how-impeachment-trial-should-unfold">told her home paper, the Maine Republic</a>, that she&#8217;s on the fence about Sen. Chuck Schumer&#8217;s (D-NY) proposal to include witness testimony in the Senate&#8217;s upcoming impeachment trial, and that she&#8217;s worried Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is abrogating his duty to be &#8220;impartial&#8221; as the head of the Senate impeachment process.
Collins rarely makes marshaling a majority of Republicans in the Senate easy, and she is often considered to be the easiest target for Democrat &#8220;compromises.&#8221; In fact, sources close to Schumer&#8217;s office named Collins as a clear target for his &#8220;wedge&#8221; proposal, since she is considered particularly receptive to messaging tying her directly to President Donald Trump.
The &#8220;wedge&#8221; seems to be working.
&#8220;I am open to witnesses,&#8221; Collins told the Maine Republic, departing markedly from Republican Senate leadership on the issue. &#8220;I think it’s premature to decide who should be called until we see the evidence that is presented and get the answers to the questions that we senators can submit through the Chief Justice to both sides.&#8221;
Oddly enough, though, she went on to say that she didn&#8217;t &#8220;understand is why the House, having issued subpoenas, to Secretary Pompeo for example, did not seek to enforce those subpoenas in court,&#8221; and have Pompeo, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security advisor John Bolton testify in the House impeachment inquiry, where evidence for impeachment is supposed to be collected, signaling that she believes the Democrats are asking for witnesses to repair holes left by the House effort.
If that&#8217;s confusing, her commentary on McConnell is downright baffling.
&#8220;It is inappropriate, in my judgment, for senators on either side of the aisle to prejudge the evidence before they have heard what is presented to us, because the each of us will take an oath, an oath that I take very seriously to render impartial justice. That’s what it says, impartial justice. And I have heard Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, saying that the President should be impeached, found guilty, and removed from office,&#8221; Collins went on.
&#8220;I’ve heard the Senate Majority leaders saying that he’s taking his cues from the White House,&#8221; she quipped. &#8220;There are senators on both sides of the aisle, who, to me, are not giving the appearance of and the reality of judging that’s in an impartial way.&#8221;
McConnell doesn&#8217;t seem to be hiding that he&#8217;s collaborating with the White House to set up a defense, but that&#8217;s also his duty as a member of Republican leadership &#8212; a point made regularly by McConnell himself in the face of Democrat accusations.
Collins is the second Republican to express such concern over McConnell&#8217;s leadership, the other being Collins&#8217; partner in most defections from the Republican caucus, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).
McConnell said late last week that he had all Senate Republicans in line on acquittal, but he, possibly knowing about Collins&#8217; situation, did not indicate that he had every last Republican in line on allowing witnesses. That likely means that Collins is well within the ranks when it comes to the final vote, but may be trying to &#8220;compromise&#8221; on her own, perhaps to satisfy concerned Mainers who objected to her decision to support Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he was under seige by Democrats accusing him of a decades old sexual assault.

Susan Collins

Defection? Susan Collins Says She&#8217;s &#8216;Open&#8217; To Witnesses At Impeachment Trial, Criticizes McConnell

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has effectively marshaled the Senate Republican caucus, according to a new report in the New York Post, and the GOP is united behind a no-witness impeachment trial &#8212; if the House ever transmits the articles of impeachment they voted on before their holiday recess.
Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have been looking to drive a wedge between Senate Republicans by suggesting that any impeachment trial that doesn&#8217;t feature witnesses additional to those who testified in front of Rep. Adam Schiff&#8217;s (D-CA) House Intelligence Committee &#8212; the committee actually charged with gathering evidence and testimony in support of the House&#8217;s articles of impeachment &#8212; would be a show trial, and that Republicans who supported McConnell&#8217;s decision to bar witnesses would be &#8220;complicit&#8221; in the White House&#8217;s treachery.
The &#8220;wedge&#8221; doesn&#8217;t seem to have worked. <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/28/trump-impeachment-senate-gop-reportedly-unites-behind-a-no-witness-trial/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&amp;utm_medium=site%20buttons&amp;utm_campaign=site%20buttons">The New York Post reports McConnell believes</a> he has his entire caucus united: &#8220;After weeks of behind-the-scenes debate, Senate Republicans have hit on their strategy for handling President Trump’s impeachment: a brief trial — with no witness testimony — and a fast acquittal.&#8221;
That doesn&#8217;t mean the trial will be swift. Republicans still plan on examining the evidence presented at the House hearings and will allow the White House to mount a defense.
McConnell&#8217;s achievement comes just as President Donald Trump warmed to the idea of witness testimony, telling reporters late last week that he would call former Vice President Joe Biden to the stand if Democrats were successful in their bid, so that his lawyers could ask him about his dealings in Ukraine &#8212; and, specifically, about whether he wielded the influence of the Obama White House with Ukrainian officials in order to wave them off of investigating an oil and gas company that employed his son, Hunter.
Biden said, over the weekend, that he&#8217;d refuse to comply with any subpoena &#8212; a deeply ironic outcome for Democrats, who charged the president with &#8220;obstruction of Congress&#8221; for refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas and refusing to allow his own employees to testify in front of House impeachment committees.
Schumer was pushing the idea of a more comprehensive Senate trial, despite battling against a witness trial in 1998, during former President Bill Clinton&#8217;s impeachment, apparently in order to patch holes in the Democrats&#8217; argument for impeaching President Trump. The New York Democrat proposed taking testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, in the hopes of substantiating Democrats&#8217; claims that Trump abused his power and demanded the Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden in return for an increase in foreign aid.
McConnell did tell Fox News last week that he is prepared to make things difficult for Democrats if they are, indeed, successful at convincing enough Republicans to vote for a witness trial. “If we go down in the witness path, we’re going to want the whistleblower. We’re going to want Hunter Biden,&#8221; he said. “You can see here that this is the kind of mutual assured destruction episode that will go on for a long time.”

Mitch MCConnell

McConnell Mandates Unity, Senate GOP &#8216;United&#8217; Behind No-Witness Impeachment Trial

Every now and then the facts so glaringly clash with the Democratic narrative that even CNN is compelled to produce a report that actually exposes the side the network so clearly tries to promote.
On Friday, President Trump&#8217;s least favorite news network took an honest look at the impeachment rhetoric from the Democratic Party, particularly Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY), and had to admit that what he&#8217;s saying about the impending Senate impeachment trial against Trump sounds a lot different than what he was saying ahead of Bill Clinton&#8217;s trial back in 1999.
McConnell&#8217;s description of himself as &#8220;not an impartial juror&#8221; when it comes to conducting the impeachment trial has Schumer and his fellow Democrats calling the trial illegitimate before it has even begun. But, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/politics/chuck-schumer-impeachment-1999-kfile/index.html">CNN</a> highlights, &#8220;Schumer himself repeatedly expressed similar sentiments in the late 1990s when senators weighed the removal of President Bill Clinton.&#8221;
&#8220;I&#8217;m not an impartial juror,&#8221; McConnell said two weeks ago. &#8220;This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision.&#8221;
The assertion prompted denunciations from Democrats, including a righteous rebuke from Schumer, who claimed he was &#8220;utterly amazed&#8221; that McConnell would declare such a thing.
&#8220;Let the American people hear it loud and clear, the Republican leader said, proudly, &#8216;I&#8217;m not an impartial juror. I&#8217;m not impartial about this at all.&#8217; That is an astonishing admission of partisanship,&#8221; Schumer declared in response on the Senate floor, as<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/mcconnell-impartial-juror-impeachment/index.html"> CNN</a> reported.
&#8220;The American people want Mitch McConnell to be an impartial juror in this situation,&#8221; said Schumer, insisting later, &#8220;I&#8217;m withholding any final decision until we hear all the evidence.&#8221;
The problem with Schumer&#8217;s supposed &#8220;amazement&#8221; at McConnell&#8217;s &#8220;astonishing&#8221; embrace of partiality is that Schumer himself proudly declared his own partiality back in 1998 and 1999 ahead of Clinton&#8217;s impeachment trial, which began in January of 1999. CNN reports:
<blockquote>But in several appearances on television in 1998 and 1999 reviewed by CNN&#8217;s KFile, Schumer noted that senators had previously formed opinions heading into the trial and that the Senate was &#8220;not like a jury box.&#8221; Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 after saying during his campaign that a vote for him would be a vote to not impeach Clinton.</blockquote>
CNN provides several quotes from Schumer at the time, including these comments he made on CNN&#8217;s &#8220;Larry King Live&#8221; in January 1999:
<blockquote>&#8220;We have a pre-opinion,&#8221; Schumer said, citing himself and two newly-elected Republican senators who had voted on impeachment in 1998 as members of the House of Representatives who said they would vote in the Senate. &#8220;This is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.&#8221;
&#8220;So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it&#8217;s not a jury box,&#8221; King asked Schumer.
&#8220;Many do,&#8221; Schumer responded. &#8220;And then they change. In fact, it&#8217;s also not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don&#8217;t have jurors called and lobbied and things like that. I mean, it&#8217;s quite different than a jury. And we&#8217;re also the judge.&#8221;</blockquote>
Schumer told the world in an <a href="http://movies2.nytimes.com/specials/starr/clinton/021299impeach-text-schumer.html">op-ed</a> in February 1999 announcing his official decision to acquit Clinton that he had made up his mind back in September. &#8220;I will be voting to acquit the President on both counts,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I had to make my decision in September as a member of the Judiciary Committee in the House, and while I was in the middle of the campaign.&#8221;
Asked for comment about the clashing statements, a spokesman for Schumer told CNN that this situation is different somehow because of the investigation into Clinton by independent counsel Kennith Starr.
&#8220;These quotes all came after the Starr investigation, which included testimony from key witnesses including President Clinton, had concluded and been made public for months and as Sen. Schumer was in the anomalous position of having already voted on impeachment in both the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor,&#8221; said the spokesman. &#8220;As is reflected in these quotes, Schumer believed then and still believes now that all of the facts must be allowed to come out and then a decision can be made &#8212; in stark contrast to the Republicans today in both the House and Senate who have worked to prevent all the facts and evidence from coming out.&#8221;

Chuck Schumer

CNN: Schumer Said Same Thing In 1999 About Impeachment He’s Now Blasting McConnell For Saying

Bill Clinton

In an op-ed for <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/475755-theres-no-requirement-or-need-for-an-actual-trial-in-the-senate">The Hill</a> published Monday, Bradley A. Blakeman, former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush and an adjunct professor of public policy and international affairs at Georgetown University, argues that &#8220;there&#8217;s no requirement — or need — for an actual trial in the Senate.&#8221; President Trump has since made clear that he agrees.
When the House Democrats finally hand over the two articles of impeachment — for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — to the Republican-controlled Senate, House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has at least five options, Blakeman explains. One of those options, he argues, is to simply dismiss the trial altogether.
&#8220;The Senate could entertain a motion by the president’s counsel to dismiss — before the start of a trial — both articles of impeachment, for failure to meet the constitutional threshold for stating a cause of action,&#8221; Blakeman writes. The decision would require only a simple majority vote (51) to pass because it is a procedural motion.
After detailing four other options, Blakeman lays out unequivocally where he stands:
<blockquote>In my opinion, a trial is unnecessary. The House articles, on their face, are defective. Both fail to meet the constitutional threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This would negate a trial but does not give the president any formal “acquittal,” after a trial on the merits of the articles, which would prove the president’s innocence. While this would be true in a traditional criminal judicial proceeding, it is not the case in a political trial. No matter how the Senate deals with the articles of impeachment, Democrats and Republicans will put their own political spin on the outcome. Since the House articles of impeachment were voted strictly on party lines, and the country is so divided on the whole impeachment process, in my opinion, a trial is less important.</blockquote>
President Trump highlighted Blakeman&#8217;s &#8220;dismissal&#8221; argument in a pair of tweets Thursday morning, quoting Blakeman from an appearance on Fox News.
Citing Blakeman, Trump wrote: &#8220;I happen to believe as a lawyer that the charges are defective, they don’t meet the Constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, so I would like to see a Motion to Dismiss. At least 51 Republican Senators would agree with that — there should be no trial.&#8221;
&#8220;Nancy Pelosi has no leverage over the Senate,&#8221; Trump added in a follow-up tweet, again quoting Blakeman. &#8220;Mitch McConnell did not nose his way into the impeachment process in the House, and she has no standing in the Senate.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Brad Blakeman “I happen to believe as a lawyer that the charges are defective, they don’t meet the Constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, so I would like to see a Motion to Dismiss. At least 51 Republican Senators would agree with that-there should be no trial.”
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1210179032031072256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“Nancy Pelosi has no leverage over the Senate. Mitch McConnell did not nose his way into the impeachment process in the House, and she has no standing in the Senate.” Brad Blakeman. Crazy Nancy should clean up her filthy dirty District &amp; help the homeless there. A primary for N?
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1210188790008037376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In his op-ed for The Hill, Blakeman goes on to outline the other four options he maintains are available to Senate Republicans. If McConnell chooses not to dismiss the trial outright, he could begin the trial but (quickly) end it &#8220;whenever the Senate majority deems it has heard enough and calls for a vote.&#8221; Republicans would only need to be certain that impeachment does not have two-thirds approval, a near impossibility.
McConnell could also take the opposite approach, conducting a &#8220;full-blown trial,&#8221; deliberately dragging it out and calling a variety of witnesses &#8220;as long as the Senate majority feels doing so is in its interests.&#8221; This option, Blakeman predicts, would result in Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts being forced to intervene and issue &#8220;numerous rulings, some of which would be unpredictable in their outcomes.&#8221;
Another option: hold the trial but then vote for dismissal, a procedural motion requiring a simple majority.
Finally, Blakeman argues, Republicans could employ the &#8220;nuclear option&#8221;: &#8220;make a procedural motion to adjourn the start of a trial until Nov. 4, 2020,&#8221; allowing voters to decide Trump&#8217;s fate. That option also would only require a simple majority vote.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trumps-christmas-tweets-take-aim-at-nancy-pelosi-gavin-newsom">Trump Takes Aim At Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom On Christmas</a>

Blakeman: There’s No Requirement For Senate To Hold Impeachment Trial; Trump Agrees

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL), the same senator who voted against the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, saying that he was a “good man” but “I believe we are dealing with issues right now that are bigger than a nominee,” now is offering another histrionic display of her moral conscience, asserting that she is “disturbed” that Senate Mitch McConnell has stated he will work in “total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president as well as the Senate” as he deals with the House’s impeachment of President Trump.
McConnell had stated, “I&#8217;m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president&#8217;s position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can.&#8221;He added, &#8220;We don&#8217;t have the kind of ball control on this that a typical issue, for example, comes over from the House; if I don&#8217;t like it, we don&#8217;t take it up. We have no choice but to take it up, but we&#8217;ll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time in total coordination with White House counsel&#8217;s office and the people who are representing the President in the well of the Senate,” according to <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/12/mcconnell-total-coordination-white-house-impeachment-trial/4416518002/">USA Today.</a>
On Tuesday, Murkowski said, according to <a href="https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/-Murkowski-disturbed-by-McConnells-vow-for-total-coordination-with-White-House-for-impeachment-trial-566472361.html">KTUU</a>, “How we will deal with witnesses remains to be seen,” then continued,  “I think it is fair to say right now that there is so much uncertainty … “ She said that the House rushed through the impeachment, saying, “Speaker Pelosi was very clear, very direct that her goal was to get this done before Christmas.”
Murkowski apparently theorized that the Senate was being asked to keep acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security advisor John Bolton from testifying, saying, “If the House truly believed they had information, that was going to be important. They subpoenaed him, and if they ignore the subpoena, as they did, at the direction of the White House, then that next step (for the House) is to go to the courts.”
Responding to McConnell’s remarks, Murkowski said, “And in fairness, when I heard that I was disturbed. To me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process.”
Murkowski asserted, “For me to prejudge and say there’s nothing there or on the other hand, he should be impeached yesterday, that’s wrong. In my view, that’s wrong.”
Murkowski continued dramatically, “If it means that I am viewed as one who looks openly and critically at every issue in front of me rather than acting as a rubber stamp for my party or my president, I’m totally good with that. I’m totally, totally good with that.”
When Murkowski announced she would vote against Kavanaugh, she contended that she had been &#8220;wrestling&#8221; with the decision, the &#8220;most difficult&#8221; she had ever had to make as a senator, as <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/410097-murkowski-kavanaugh-good-man-but-maybe-not-the-right-man-for-the-court">The Hill</a> reported.  She said, “I believe we are dealing with issues right now that are bigger than a nominee and how we ensure that our institutions, not only the legislative branch but our judicial branch, continue to be respected. This is what I&#8217;ve been wrestling with,” adding that the nation’s institutions needed to be &#8220;viewed as fair.&#8221; Apparently referring to the women who had testified against Kavanaugh, she complained, &#8220;But if people who are victims, people who feel that they&#8217;re is no fairness in our system of government, particularly within our courts, we&#8217;ve gone down a path that is not good and right for this country.”
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Menu