On Wednesday night, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the largest stimulus bill in history, amounting to some $2.2 trillion in relief measures, including $1,200 checks to most American adults (and another $500 for most children), a $500 billion loan program for struggling businesses, cities and states, nearly $400 billion for employee-retention funds for small businesses and another $130 billion for hospitals, among other provisions.
Now the bill goes to the Democrat-majority House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is trying to make sure her fellow &#8220;disappointed&#8221; Democrats get on board.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced Wednesday that the House will convene at 9 a.m. on Friday to consider the bill, which will be voted on by voice vote so that House members won&#8217;t need to return to Washington amid the crisis.
While the Senate passed the bill 96-0, with some Senators absent due to self-quarantine or health concerns, the House may not see such unanimity. Despite the economic relief bill&#8217;s sweeping provision and staggering final cost, it is not enough for many House Democrats, who want more of their agenda items included, as demonstrated by the House Democrats&#8217; bill floated Monday and quickly withdrawn after widespread backlash over its <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senator-highlights-pelosis-absurd-coronavirus-bill-that-is-unrelated-to-the-crisis">long list</a> of non-crisis-related, &#8220;Democratic wishlist&#8221; provisions — including new voting laws, collective bargaining rights for federal unions, and imposing carbon emissions caps on airlines.
While Pelosi strongly signaled Wednesday that she will get the bill passed in the House on Friday, she also revealed that she&#8217;s having to do some work behind the scenes to get &#8220;disappointed&#8221; Democrats to back the historic bill.
&#8220;What is important is for us to recognize the good that is in the bill, appreciate it for what it does,&#8221; Pelosi <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/25/politics/cnntv-nancy-pelosi-stimulus-bill/index.html">said</a> on CNN&#8217;s &#8220;Situation Room&#8221; Wednesday evening. &#8220;Don&#8217;t judge it for what it doesn&#8217;t because we have more bills to come.&#8221;
&#8220;Those comments came just after Pelosi told House Democrats on a series of conference calls that she is already thinking about the substance of the fourth coronavirus relief package that Congress will have to pass to respond to the crisis, according to sources on the calls,&#8221; <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/25/politics/stimulus-senate-action-coronavirus/index.html">CNN</a> reports. &#8220;Pelosi made it clear to members who are disappointed that the pending bill did not include enough of their priorities that they will have a chance to add those provisions in the fourth package, the sources said.&#8221;
&#8220;At the start of all this we had two bills, which were about emergencies &#8230; and the emergency isn&#8217;t over, but the focus was on those two bills. Now we&#8217;re mitigating for the damage of it all to the health and to the livelihood of the American people,&#8221; Pelosi told CNN. &#8220;That is in this bill. And then we will go forward for recovery. Emergency, mitigation, recovery. And again all along the way still addressing the emergency and mitigation needs by focusing on how we build the economy in a positive way as we meet the health needs of the American people.&#8221;
All it takes is one House Democrat to force his or her fellow members of Congress to appear in Washington in person to vote, and democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has been one of the more vocal critics of the Senate bill, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/25/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-coronavirus-package-vote/index.html">told CNN</a> Wednesday that she might do just that. While she said she&#8217;s &#8220;open&#8221; to a remote vote &#8220;if necessary,&#8221; she said, &#8220;With the health risks of travel, there is no easy choice here. But essential workers are showing up and putting their health at risk every day, and if the final text of a bill is set up to hurt them, it may be something we have to do.&#8221;
An incensed tweet Wednesday by the congresswoman about the Senate adjourning also highlighted her sentiment that members of Congress should be physically in D.C. &#8220;The Senate might ADJOURN FOR A MONTH after this bill?&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. &#8220;This is completely dangerous and unacceptable. We HAVE to be able to respond to people’s needs. People don’t have this time. Even IF the Senate can even return on the 20th (big IF) that may not be enough time to solve May.&#8221;
She followed that up with a tweet blasting the Senate bill for supposedly containing a &#8220;historic corporate giveaway,&#8221; writing: &#8220;Just a reminder that there is absolutely no good reason why Senate Republicans are tying a historic corporate giveaway to getting relief money in the hands of families. They could just authorize sending checks to families today, right now, &amp; deal with the rest. But they refuse.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Senate might ADJOURN FOR A MONTH after this bill?
This is completely dangerous and unacceptable. We HAVE to be able to respond to people’s needs.
People don’t have this time. Even IF the Senate can even return on the 20th (big IF) that may not be enough time to solve May. <a href="https://t.co/O5XnubG0l1">https://t.co/O5XnubG0l1</a>
&mdash; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1242856168063672326?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 25, 2020</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">
Just a reminder that there is absolutely no good reason why Senate Republicans are tying a historic corporate giveaway to getting relief money in the hands of families.
They could just authorize sending checks to families today, right now, &amp; deal with the rest. But they refuse.
&mdash; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1242894936753700879?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 25, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/texas-finds-creative-ways-to-help-people-businesses-amid-crisis-dan-crenshaw-cheers-positive-moves">Texas Finds Creative Ways To Help People, Businesses Amid Crisis; Dan Crenshaw Points Out ‘Positive Moves’</a>

Ocasio-Cortez

Senate Passes $2 Trillion Relief Bill; Pelosi Has Message For ‘Disappointed’ House Democrats

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Coronavirus

Donald Trump

Nancy Pelosi

U.S. Senate

The United States Senate unanimously passed on Wednesday night a massive $2 trillion stimulus bill to combat the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic, which originated in China.
The 880-page bill was passed 96-0 with four Republican Senators not being able to vote because they were in quarantine due to the coronavirus.
The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/25/trump-senate-coronavirus-economic-stimulus-2-trillion/">reported</a>:
<blockquote>The bill would extend $1,200 to most American adults and $500 for most children, create a $500 billion lending program for businesses, cities and states, and a $367 billion employee retention fund for small businesses. It would direct $130 billion to hospitals and provide four months of expanded unemployment insurance, among other things.
Lawmakers and the White House were bombarded with lobbyists and special interest groups seeking assistance during the negotiations, and the price tag rose from $850 billion to $2.2 trillion in just a matter of days.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
96-0 in the United States Senate. Congratulations AMERICA!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1243037202793316354?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is a breaking news story, refresh the page for updates.

US-HEALTH-VIRUS-POLITICS

Senate Unanimously Passes Massive Coronavirus Stimulus Bill

COVID-19

Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Tim Scott (R-SC) and Ben Sasse (R-NE) have called for a halt to the $2 trillion stimulus bill, which was reportedly approved in a deal between the White House and Senate leaders around 1 a.m. Wednesday morning, after the senators discovered a “massive drafting error” that could allegedly incentivize mass layoffs. 
According to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/handful-gop-senators-threaten-delay-senate-coronavirus-bill-over-drafting-n1168766">NBC News</a>, the senators released a joint statement Wednesday after discovering the wording, which they say poses an “immediate, real world problem.”
&#8220;A massive drafting error in the current version of the coronavirus relief legislation could have devastating consequences: Unless this bill is fixed, there is a strong incentive for employees to be laid off instead of going to work,” said the senators in a joint statement. 
“If the federal government accidentally incentivizes layoffs, we risk life-threatening shortages in sectors where doctors, nurses, and pharmacists are trying to care for the sick, and where growers and grocers, truckers and cooks are trying to get food to families&#8217; tables,” the statement continued.
The statement says that the three GOP senators will oppose &#8220;fast-tracking&#8221; the legislation until the text of the bill has been addressed, fearing the consequences for American workers would be too great if the bill were to pass as is.
“We must sadly oppose the fast-tracking of this bill until this text is addressed, or the Department of Labor issues regulatory guidance that no American would earn more by not working than by working,” said the senators’ statement. 
In a press conference Wednesday afternoon, Graham argued how the proposal would de-incentive working in his home state of South Carolina.
“Under this proposal that they agreed to last night, on unemployment you would be making $24.07 an hour in South Carolina,” said Graham, reports <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtSSpXLlVik">Fox News</a>. “There are a lot of jobs in South Carolina that do not pay $24.07.”
“My goal was to add some federal dollars to the pot, to get you back to what you were making with a cap of $600,” said Graham. “This bill pays you more not to work than if you were working.”
&#8220;If this is not a drafting error, then it&#8217;s the worst idea I&#8217;ve seen in a long time, and that&#8217;s saying a lot given that we&#8217;re in Washington,&#8221; said Graham.
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/25/trump-senate-coronavirus-economic-stimulus-2-trillion/">The Washington Post</a> reports that it’s possible the Senate leadership will not authorize changes to the text of the bill, as many people saw the deal “as a compromise to win Democratic support.” It&#8217;s currently unclear whether the wording of the text is a drafting error or represents a deliberate policy choice. 
In the bill’s current form, the federal government would send $1,200 checks to American adults, with some restrictions, and allocate $367 billion to a small business loan program, reports the news agency. 
The bill would also create a $500 billion fund for cities, states, and industries, and provide $130 billion for hospitals across the country, reports the news agency. 
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pelosi-gavels-house-out-of-session-after-just-three-minutes-will-not-commit-to-vote-on-coronavirus-relief">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) ended the House session on Wednesday, after only three minutes, without offering a commitment to bring the final legislation to a vote. The previous night, Pelosi announced in a statement that House Democrats would be reviewing the bill to “determine a course of action.”

William P. Barr Confirmation

‘Massive Drafting Error’: Three GOP Senators Call For Stimulus Halt, Argue Text ‘Incentivizes Layoffs’

The U.S. Senate is considering upping the payments to Americans in a massive stimulus bill to stem the effects of the coronavirus outbreak on the economy.
Sources familiar with the negotiations tell <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-says-stimulus-checks-would-go-to-most-americans-as-senators-eye-higher-amount">Fox News</a> that members of Congress and the Treasury Department are discussing plans to deliver $1,200 to all Americans who qualify in two payments, for a total of $2,400. Children will receive $500 under the plan.
But not all would qualify. &#8220;One source told Fox Business Network that the amount would start to reduce for those making $75,000 and above — and the checks would be limited to those who make $99,000 or less.&#8221;
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Thursday told Fox Business Network that there are plans to deliver $1,000 to most adult Americans within three weeks, and the same $500 per child. That means a family of four would receive as much as $3,000. In early discussions, the plans are for the first checks to go out around April 6, followed by a second wave of the same amount some time in mid-May if the crisis has not abated.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Thursday that he hopes to deliver aid to families “as rapidly as possible.”
“Senate Republicans want to put cash in the hands of the American people,” McConnell said. “This is something we want to do right away. This is not an ordinary policy, but this is not an ordinary time. The American people need help and they need it fast. This will deliver it.”
The cost for the stimulus package to Americans tops $500 billion, while the total cost will be more than $1 trillion.
But who would qualify? &#8220;McConnell indicated job status would not be a factor, and that the money would go to unemployed workers and those recently laid off; those still working; and retirees, even if they&#8217;re already receiving Social Security checks,&#8221; Fox reported.
<blockquote> McConnell’s new proposal also includes relief and support for small businesses, and would provide “new federally guaranteed loans” that he said would “address immediate cash flow problems.” McConnell also said that the Senate was working to let “qualified” small businesses get liquidity through “familiar institutions” like their community banks.
He added that the relief for small businesses would help them to “endure, help workers keep their jobs, and businesses and workers emerge from this ready to thrive.”</blockquote>
Mnuchin has also announced others plans to ease the financial burden on Americans.
“If you owe a payment to the IRS, you can defer up to $1 million as an individual,” he said, adding that the payments would be “interest free and penalty free for 90 days.” But Americans must still file by April 15.
“All you have to do is file your taxes; you’ll automatically not get charged interest in penalties,” Mnuchin said during a coronavirus briefing Wednesday with President Trump looking on.
A new <a class="class" href="http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_2003151338.pdf#page=23" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">Marist poll</a> conducted for NPR/PBS News earlier this week found that 18% of adults in the U.S. said that they had already lost their job or had their hours reduced due to the pandemic.
President Trump said this week he supports direct payouts to Americans. “I think we’re going to do something that gets money to them as quickly as possible. That may not be an accurate way of doing it. Some people obviously shouldn’t be getting a check for $1,000 but we’ll have an idea at the end of the day what we will be doing,&#8221; he said.
“We’re going big,” Trump said. “We want to go big, go solid.”

U.S. dollar bills

Senate Eyes Higher Amount For Stimulus Checks To Americans. Who Qualifies?

Mitch McConnell

While his administration and congressional leaders continued to hammer out a trillion-dollar COVID-19 stimulus package, President Trump signed into law Wednesday evening the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6201">Families First Coronavirus Response Act</a>, the second bipartisan coronavirus relief bill Congress has passed so far — the first providing around <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/03/04/812109864/bipartisan-negotiators-reach-deal-for-roughly-8-billion-for-coronavirus-response">$8 billion</a> in emergency funding for emergency prevention and response efforts. So what&#8217;s in the &#8220;Families First&#8221; bill? Below is a breakdown of its key provisions.
The Families First law addresses the following key priorities, among others:
<ol>
<li>provides additional funding for nutrition and food assistance programs, particularly in light of schools being shutdown and additional needs for elderly assistance programs</li>
<li>expands paid leave benefits</li>
<li>expands unemployment benefits</li>
<li>provides coronavirus testing at no cost to consumers</li>
<li>temporarily increases the Medicaid federal medical assistance percentage</li>
</ol>
Food and Nutrition Assistance Funding: Families First infuses significant federal money — nearly a billion dollars&#8217; worth — into various nutrition assistance programs, available through Sept. 30, 2020. The provisions include $500 million for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and $400 million for the emergency food assistance program. Another $100 million is allocated for programs in U.S. territories: Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and American Samoa. The law loosens restrictions on who can received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and specifies that qualified households will be eligible for the food assistance programs if their schools have been closed for five consecutive days.
<div id="res818555991" class="bucketwrap internallink insettwocolumn inset2col ">
<div class="bucket img">
<div id="res818556871" class="bucketwrap internallink insettwocolumn inset2col ">
<div class="bucket img">
<div class="bucketblock">
Paid Leave:  As summarized by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818322136/heres-what-is-in-the-families-first-coronavirus-aid-package-trump-approved">NPR</a>, Families First requires employers with fewer than 500 employees to provides two weeks of paid sick leave to employees who cannot work for COVID-19 related reasons, whether they have contracted the virus, need to self-isolate, must care for children whose schools have been shutdown, or must care for someone who is sick or quarantined. The law specifies that employers cannot force employees to find a replacement or take other forms of paid time off. To help businesses in covering paid leave costs, the bill provides tax credits to employers. Self-employed persons will also get a tax credit if they must take sick leave as a result of COVID-19. Additionally, the law expands paid family and medical leave to up to three months.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Unemployment Benefits: The law provides almost $1 billion in state grants to help processing for expanded unemployment benefits and provides additional emergency relief funds to states that have already maxed out unemployment benefits.
Free COVID-19 Testing: Families First makes coronavirus testing completely free for the public, providing waivers so that consumers does not have to pay deductible or copays.
Temporary Medicaid Expansion: The law &#8220;temporarily increase[s] the Medicaid federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP),&#8221; increasing by 6.2% federal payments to the states to cover Medicaid costs.
Below is the full text of the congressional summary of the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6201">Families First Coronavirus Response Act</a> (read <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6201/text">full text of the bill here</a>):
Families First Coronavirus Response Act 
This bill responds to the coronavirus outbreak by providing paid sick leave and free coronavirus testing, expanding food assistance and unemployment benefits, and requiring employers to provide additional protections for health care workers.
Specifically, the bill provides FY2020 supplemental appropriations to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for nutrition and food assistance programs, including
<ul>
<li>the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);</li>
<li>the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP); and</li>
<li>nutrition assistance grants for U.S. territories.</li>
</ul>
The bill also provides FY2020 appropriations to the Department of Health and Human Services for nutrition programs that assist the elderly.
The supplemental appropriations provided by the bill are designated as emergency spending, which is exempt from discretionary spending limits.
The bill modifies USDA food assistance and nutrition programs to
<ul>
<li>allow certain waivers to requirements for the school meal programs,</li>
<li>suspend the work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program), and</li>
<li>allow states to request waivers to provide certain emergency SNAP benefits.</li>
</ul>
In addition, the bill requires the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue an emergency temporary standard that requires certain employers to develop and implement a comprehensive infectious disease exposure control plan to protect health care workers.
The bill also includes provisions that
<ul>
<li>establish a federal emergency paid leave benefits program to provide payments to employees taking unpaid leave due to the coronavirus outbreak,</li>
<li>expand unemployment benefits and provide grants to states for processing and paying claims,</li>
<li>require employers to provide paid sick leave to employees,</li>
<li>establish requirements for providing coronavirus diagnostic testing at no cost to consumers,</li>
<li>treat personal respiratory protective devices as covered countermeasures that are eligible for certain liability protections, and</li>
<li>temporarily increase the Medicaid federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP).</li>
</ul>

President Trump

Trump Signs ‘Families First’ Relief Bill Into Law: Here’s What That Could Mean For You

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is readying the Senate to vote on two powerful pro-life bills: South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/graham-reintroduces-20-week-abortion-ban">Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act</a>, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless it resulted from rape, incest, or the mother’s life were endangered, and Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse’s <a href="https://www.omaha.com/news/state_and_regional/ben-sasse-seeks-support-for-abortion-survivors-bill/article_b85e2e10-a43f-5613-a5f4-0c362593c5a7.html">Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act</a>, which “in the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive,” would ensure that a health care provider present must act to preserve the life of the child.
Graham, the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, introduced his bill supported by Judiciary Committee members Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Thom Tillis (R-NC), John Kennedy (R-LA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), John Cornyn (R-TX), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Mike Lee (R-UT).
The Judiciary Committee described the bill thus:
<blockquote>The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would make it illegal for any person to perform, or attempt to perform, an abortion without first making a determination of the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child. If the post-fertilization age of the unborn child is determined to be 20 weeks or greater, an abortion shall not be performed, unless –</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>It is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman;</li>
<li>The pregnancy is a result of rape and the woman has received medical treatment or counseling at least 48 hours prior to the abortion; or if she chooses to do so, has made a report to law enforcement; or</li>
<li>The pregnancy is a result of rape or incest against a minor and the abuse is reported to either social services or law enforcement.</li>
</ul>
The Committee added, “In the case of the exceptions – the abortion may only proceed in a manner that provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless that would pose a greater risk of death or serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman; and the abortion provider must receive informed consent from the pregnant woman, certifying that she has been provided the child’s gestational age, a description of the law, and her rights under the law.”
Both bill would require a 60 vote super-majority in the Senate if they hope to break a filibuster; there are 53 GOP senators, but last year three Democrats supported Sasse’s legislation. Sasse <a href="https://www.omaha.com/livewellnebraska/health/ben-sasse-bill-mandating-care-for-infants-born-alive-during/article_6b86ffb6-8554-5fc0-a937-7cbeb60a451d.html">has said</a> of the bill, “Picture a baby that’s already been born, that is outside the womb, gasping for air, that’s the only thing that today’s vote is actually about. We’re talking about babies who’ve already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access.”
On Tuesday, Sasses stated, “This hearing is about making sure that every newborn baby has a fighting chance — whether she’s born in a labor and delivery ward or whether she’s born in an abortion clinic.&#8221;
On Thursday, Senator John Thune(R-S.D.) slammed Democrats over the issue, saying, &#8220;Unfortunately abortion extremism has grown to such an extent in the Democrat Party that leading Democrats — including a Democrat presidential candidate — have not only ruled out banning late-term abortions, they’ve actually refused to rule out infanticide.”
&nbsp;

Senate Votes On Final Verdict In Impeachment Trial Of President Donald Trump

McConnell Readies Senate For Two Major Pro-Life Bills

Abortion

On Thursday, 55 senators, including eight Republicans, voted for a resolution that would force President Trump to obtain permission from Congress before ordering military action against Iran.
The eight Republicans were Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AL), Todd C. Young (R-IN), Lamar Alexander (R-TN.) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA).
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/senate-passes-resolution-limiting-trump-against-iran-in-bipartisan-vote/2020/02/13/d2f7429c-4e8f-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html">The Washington Post</a> noted, “Trump will almost certainly veto the measure once it passes the House, and neither chamber of Congress has the votes to override that veto, lawmakers say.” That is because the 55 votes fall short of a supermajority needed to override a presidential veto.
On Wednesday President Trump tweeted his disapproval of the resolution, tweeting, “We are doing very well with Iran and this is not the time to show weakness. If my hands were tied, Iran would have a field day. Sends a very bad signal.”
Senator Lindsey Graham warned that Trump would veto the bill, saying, “If this passes, the president will never abide by it — no president would. I want the Iranians to understand, when it comes to their provocative behavior, all options are on the table,” as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/us/politics/iran-war-powers-trump.html">The New York Times</a> reported.
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell added that the resolution was &#8220;deeply flawed,&#8221; adding, “It is too blunt and too broad,” as <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-passes-measure-curb-trumps-war-powers-rare-bipartisan-vote">Fox News</a> reported. On Tuesday McConnell warned the resolution “would severely limit the U.S. military’s operations flexibility to defend itself against threats posed by Iran.”
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-11/senate-to-vote-this-week-on-limiting-trump-s-iran-options">Bloomberg News</a> added that McConnell posited that after the killing of Iranian general Qassem  Soleimani, “Washington Democrats immediately suggested President Trump was leading us into World War III.” He added that the resolution was a “blunt and clumsy” measure and queried whether it was smart to “let a power like Iran push us around” while China and Russia observed.
The New York Times pointed out, “Last year, Congress cleared a bipartisan measure invoking the War Powers Act that would have cut off American military support for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen’s civil war, and a separate measure seeking to curtail the president’s war-making powers in Iran ping-ponged between the two chambers, passing the House but not the Senate.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said, “We’ve been talking to our constituents, we’ve been listening to them, and we know what they think about another war in the Middle East right now. (Trump’s] got an election that he’s focused on and he wants to win. . . . He could well veto it and then adjust behavior.”
Cassidy stated, “If this resolution was in effect at the beginning of the year, President Trump would have still been able to carry out strikes against Iran and General Soleimani … The founders gave Congress the power to declare war under Article 1 of the Constitution; we should fulfill this responsibility.”
Last June, Collins, Lee, Paul and Moran joined Democrats to support an amendment requiring Trump to ask Congress before attacking Iran unless there had been an attack from Iran or an  imminent attack that warranted a response from the United States.

US Capitol Building, Senate and House

Senate Votes To Limit Trump’s Power On Iran

Iran

At long last, the most brazenly partisan presidential impeachment in over a century and a half has come to an end. President Trump was formally acquitted on Wednesday by the U.S. Senate on each of the U.S. House’s adopted articles of impeachment: “Abuse of power” and “<a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge/">obstruction of Congress</a>.” The president was acquitted on the “abuse of power” article by a count of 52–48, and he was acquitted on the “obstruction of Congress” article by a count of 53–47. That lone vote discrepancy, of course, is due to the fact maverick Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), the Republican Party’s presidential standard-bearer a mere eight years ago, voted to convict on the first article and acquit on the second article.
Romney thus becomes the first senator in the history of the United States to vote to convict an impeached president from his/her own political party. His Senate floor speech explaining his vote made it seem like it was a decision he deeply wrestled with, but the reality is that his vote had — and will have — serious consequences.
First, Romney’s conviction vote — from a senator representing a deep-red state like Utah, no less — will place many moderate Republican senators facing potentially difficult re-election bids later this year (perhaps especially Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Thom Tillis (R-NC)) in a very difficult spot when they are grilled by adversaries as to why they did not join the former Republican presidential nominee in voting to convict Trump. Second, Romney providing nominal Republican cover to vote to convict Trump likely caused at least one — and perhaps more than one — of more moderate Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Doug Jones (D-AL), and Kyrsten Sinema to flip their respective votes from acquittal to conviction. Third, because of the second point, Romney thus likely single-handedly transformed a bipartisan acquittal of the president into a bipartisan conviction of the president.
Nonetheless, this impeachment is officially in the books. The outcome was foreordained, of course, from day one, and all signs still point toward the Democrats having overplayed their hand and the electoral politics redounding to Republicans’ interests in November.
From a historical perspective, The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky has a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-history-hans-von-spakovsky">good piece</a> on the eerie similarities between this impeachment and the post-Civil War impeachment of President Andrew Johnson on similarly frivolous grounds. I offered my own final commentary on the serious harm wrought by this lamentable saga in <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/this-whole-pathetic-impeachment-effort-was-worse-than-a-waste-of-time/">last weekend’s New York Post</a>: “[T]o call it a mere waste of time is likely far too charitable. The Democrats took stock of the decrepit state of our national politics, the bitterly fractious nature of our partisan tribalism, the pathetic regard the American people have for their Congress and took a sledgehammer to it all. The most immediate tangible result of this failed gambit will be to only further coarsen and debase our politics. … Most damaging of all, the Democrats’ pursuit of the draconian remedy of impeachment based on their claims of Trump’s corrupt subjective intentions on a diplomatic phone call has set a truly reckless precedent for the future. … For Democrats to argue that Trump’s purportedly corrupt motive somehow transmogrifies … constitutionally protected conduct into an impeachable offense is nothing short of astonishing.”
History will not judge the Democrats kindly for this stunt. But it’s now time to move on.
&nbsp;
This piece will be frequently updated.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-mitt-romney-is-no-shining-example-of-political-principle">Mitt Romney Is No Shining Example Of Political Principle</a>
RELATED: <a href="http://lp.dailywire.com/getelectionwire/">Sign up here for Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer&#8217;s weekly newsletter on election news, polling data, and analysis: &#8220;Election Wire&#8221;</a>

Chief Justice John Roberts

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

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Impeachment

U.S. House of Representatives

Following his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-mitt-romney-voting-to-convict-and-remove-trump-from-office">vote yesterday to convict</a> President Donald Trump on the House&#8217;s first adopted impeachment article, &#8220;abuse of power,&#8221; Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) is being hailed and feted as a paragon of moral conviction and political principle by all sorts of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hollywood-celebrities-love-mitt-romney-following-impeachment-vote">strange new friends</a>. In Romney&#8217;s mild defense, his Senate floor speech explaining his vote evinced a genuine internal struggle, and he voted to acquit the president on the <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge/">risible, constitutionally illiterate</a> second impeachment charge of &#8220;obstruction of Congress.&#8221;
Let us first state the obvious: Romney made the wrong decision to vote to convict the president on the first article of impeachment. This was the most blatantly partisan impeachment sham in a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-history-hans-von-spakovsky">century and a half</a>, going back to the vehement &#8220;Radical Republican&#8221; opposition to President Andrew Johnson. The conduct upon which Democrats attempted to impeach Trump is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-what-exactly-are-they-impeaching-him-for-again">dramatically less ruinous</a> than the conduct upon which the Framers would have considered impeachment justified, and reeks of the sort of petty politics that led the Framers to deliberately reject the far lesser <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/">“maladministration”</a> as a possible constitutional standard for impeachment.
What&#8217;s worse, Romney&#8217;s vote rewards an unhinged Democratic Party that has only further coarsened our politics, further embittered an already fractious and tribal citizenry, and <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/this-whole-pathetic-impeachment-effort-was-worse-than-a-waste-of-time/">recklessly lowered the bar</a> for future impeachments so as to make them far likelier — perhaps even mundane — when differing political parties come to control the House and the White House. Romney&#8217;s vote also (1) will muddy the re-election waters for endangered Republican moderates who did vote to acquit, like Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Cory Gardner (CO), and Thom Tillis (NC); (2) likely caused at least one (perhaps more) of moderate Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (WV), Doug Jones (AL), and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) to flip their votes from acquittal to conviction; and (3) therefore likely single-handedly transformed a bipartisan impeachment acquittal into a bipartisan conviction.
The analysis that Romney&#8217;s vote was merely a personal choice is thus too simplistic by half. There actually were, are, and will be tangible consequences to his decision. Those consequences will disproportionately redound against Republicans&#8217; interests, come November. Hopefully, Republican primary voters in Utah are paying attention.
But even more importantly, the emerging narrative that Romney&#8217;s vote was symptomatic of a broader fealty to devout political principle is beyond farcical and needs to be swatted down. Mitt Romney, the man who ran against Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in 1994 by avowing he&#8217;d be to the &#8220;left&#8221; of Kennedy on &#8220;gay rights&#8221; but then famously described himself as &#8220;severely conservative&#8221; when seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, has taken both sides of essentially every major political issue imaginable in his career. He has publicly waffled on at least gun rights, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, health care, illegal immigration, tax cuts, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-mitt-romney-dead-wrong-claim-there-no-josh-hammer">Israel</a>. Romney is undoubtedly a lifelong devout Mormon and we can all admire his devotion to his faith — but at least in the realm of politics, he has had no truer guiding light than the solipsistic pursuit of his own raw political power.
Consider Erielle Davidson&#8217;s column yesterday at The Federalist:
<blockquote>For starters, Romney’s track record on religious freedom has been poor. <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/romney-pulled-the-rug-out-from-under-catholic-hospitals-adoption-agencies-m" data-reader-unique-id="14">Catholic leaders</a> in Massachusetts, the state in which Romney formerly served as governor, have emphasized Romney’s role in forcing Catholic hospitals to administer the abortifacient Plan B, even if doing so violated the consciences of the employee required to administer the deadly drugs. “The injury to the conscience rights of Catholic hospitals was not done so much so much by the church’s ideological enemies on the Left but by the Romney administration,” C.J. Doyle, executive director of the <a href="http://www.catholicactionleague.org/" data-reader-unique-id="15">Catholic Action League</a>, explained to LifeSiteNews.com back in 2012. &#8230;
In a 1994 debate with Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, he proudly announced, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.” He “evolved” to eventually arrive at the pro-life position. &#8230;
The playbook is the same for health care, where he went from supporting an insurance mandate — arguing that he would love to export the Massachusetts Romneycare model to the nation at large — to accusing Bret Baier of being “wrong” when the Fox host attempted to remind him of this. The Baier interaction occurred in 2011, as Romney geared up for yet another presidential bid.</blockquote>
I have met Mitt Romney and, by all accounts, he seems like a genuinely good, decent, and upstanding man. I will not join those who are now calling him a &#8220;traitor&#8221; to the republic. But he made a very foolish decision yesterday — a decision, that is, with far broader-reaching implications than many may immediately realize. Romney&#8217;s vote, furthermore, is hardly indicative of his being a principled conservative — or even a principled anything in the sphere of politics. Rather, his vote is indicative of life&#8217;s worth of political work in which the junior senator from Utah, former governor of Massachusetts, and twice-failed presidential candidate has flirted with more political stances than Bill Clinton has flirted with Little Rock call girls. Romney is not a shining example of principle so much as he is a shining example of overly finely tuned technocratic indecisiveness.

Mitt Romney

HAMMER: Mitt Romney Is No Shining Example Of Political Principle

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) will reportedly side with Senate Democrats on Tuesday and will vote to convict and remove President Donald Trump from office. The freshman senator says he will vote to convict on House Democrats&#8217; first article impeachment and vote to acquit on the second article.
&#8220;The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious,&#8221; Romney said on the floor of the Senate. &#8220;As a Senator juror I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious, my faith is at the heart of who I am.&#8221;
&#8220;I take an oath before God as enormously consequential,&#8221; Romney continued. &#8220;I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.&#8221;
&#8220;The grave question the Constitution tasks Senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to a level of a high crime and misdemeanor,&#8221; Romney later added. &#8220;Yes, he did. The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The president delays funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president&#8217;s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust. What he did was not perfect, no, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values.&#8221;
&#8220;Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destruction violation of ones oath of office that I can imagine,&#8221; Romney continued. &#8220;I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the president from office.&#8221;
Romney then appeared in a prerecorded interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace immediately following his remarks on the Senate floor.
&#8220;Do you believe that Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president and should be removed from office?&#8221; Wallace asked.
&#8220;I believe that the act he took, an effort to corrupt an election, is as destructive an act on the oath of office and on our Constitution as I can imagine,&#8221; Romney claimed. &#8220;It is a high crime and misdemeanor within the meaning of the Constitution and that is not a decision I take lightly. It is the last decision I want to take. The personal consequences, the political consequences that fall on me as a result of that are going to be extraordinary.&#8221;
&#8220;But I swore an oath, before God, and I&#8217;m a religious person, that I would imply impartial justice and implying impartial justice said, &#8216;what the president did was grievously wrong,'&#8221; Romney continued. &#8220;And I had to vote if I was going to live with my own conscience in a way that was consistent with that oath of office.&#8221;
&#8220;Again, do you believe that Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president and should be removed from office?&#8221; Wallace pressed.
&#8220;I do believe that he should be removed from office, that is the vote that I will take in just a short while,&#8221; Romney responded.
This is a breaking news story, refresh the page for updates.

Mitt Romney Voting To Convict And Remove Trump From Office

Utah

In a Wednesday morning speech on the U.S. Senate floor in anticipation of an expected ultimate impeachment acquittal vote later today, Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) announced that he will &#8220;reluctantly&#8221; vote to convict President Donald Trump on each of the two articles of impeachment adopted by the U.S. House: &#8220;Abuse of power&#8221; and &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">obstruction of Congress</a>.&#8221; Jones has been viewed as one of three possible Democratic senators, along with Sens. Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), who could cross party lines and join the overwhelmingly majority of Republican senators expected to vote to acquit Trump.
&#8220;After many sleepless nights, I have reluctantly concluded that the evidence is sufficient to convict the President for both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,&#8221; Jones said in a statement, as <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481610-doug-jones-says-he-will-vote-to-convict-trump">reported</a> by The Hill. &#8220;[A]fter careful consideration of the evidence developed in the hearings, the public disclosures, the legal precedents, and the trial, I believe the president deliberately and unconstitutionally obstructed Congress by refusing to cooperate with the investigation in any way.&#8221;
&#8220;The president’s actions placed his personal interests well above the national interests and threatened the security of the United States, our allies in Europe, and our ally Ukraine,&#8221; Jones added. &#8220;His actions were more than simply inappropriate. They were an abuse of power.&#8221;
Jones&#8217; decision leaves Manchin and Sinema as the remaining Democrats who still might join Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the majority of his Republican caucus in voting to acquit President Trump of his impeachment charges. Moderate Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Susan Collins (ME) have each announced their intent to vote to acquit the president, which leaves freshman Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) as the only Republican senator still considered to be a possible defector.
Jones shocked the political world in 2017, winning a special election over the deeply polarizing and scandal-plagued Roy Moore to secure a Democratic Senate seat from one of the reddest and <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/247016/conservatives-greatly-outnumber-liberals-states.aspx">most conservative states</a> in the country. Accordingly, Jones, who is on the ballot this November, is widely considered to be the single most politically vulnerable Senate Democrat. As The Hill notes, a &#8220;JMC Analytics and Polling survey released late last year found that 39% of voters in Alabama support impeaching Trump, compared to 54% who oppose it.&#8221;
The Alabama Senate Republican primary is a crowded field, but there is no bigger name than Jeff Sessions — the man who long held this very Senate seat before abdicating it to assume the role of the Trump administration&#8217;s first attorney general. Other candidates include Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL), former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville, Moore, and State Sen. <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-endorses-arnold-mooney-alabamas-gop-senate-primary/">Arnold Mooney</a>. Assuming Moore does not prevail, whichever candidate does emerge from the Republican primary will assuredly become an immediate general election favorite over Jones.
&#8220;A new <a href="https://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Alabama-Senate-Executive-Summary-General-Election-Poll-1.pdf" data-reader-unique-id="17">poll</a> on the 2020 Alabama U.S. Senate race finds an uphill race ahead for incumbent Doug Jones, but also no Republican candidate breaking from the pack,&#8221; local CBS affiliate WHNT News <a href="https://whnt.com/2019/12/23/new-polls-finds-uphill-climb-for-incumbent-u-s-sen-doug-jones-in-re-election-bid/">reported</a> in December. &#8220;The poll found also shows Jones with a solid lead over Republican Roy Moore, 47 to 33 with 20% undecided. &#8230; But in match-ups against the leading GOP contenders, including Sessions, &#8230; Tuberville, and &#8230; Byrne, Jones trails.&#8221;

Sen. Doug Jones

Doug Jones Will ‘Reluctantly’ Vote To Convict Trump Today

Alabama

Doug Jones

Jeff Sessions

Joe Manchin

Kyrsten Sinema

Roy Moore

Academy Award-winning filmmaker and far-left activist Spike Lee told MSNBC&#8217;s Al Sharpton that senators will &#8220;burn in hell&#8221; if they acquit Trump.
“Let me ask you a question,” Lee said, as reported by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/spike-lee-al-sharpton-msnbc-senators-will-burn-in-hell-impeachment">Fox News</a>. “Did they have to put their hands on the Bible when they took the vow?”
“I don’t know if they had a Bible out there but I think that they had the Bible up on the podium,” Sharpton responded. “Why do you ask?”
Erupting into laughter, Lee answered, &#8220;They’re going to burn in hell if they put their hand on that Bible.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Film Director and Activist Spike Lee shares his thoughts on impeachment and the importance of voting in the 2020 election live on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PoliticsNation?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PoliticsNation</a> <a href="https://t.co/fDhd2GFToc">pic.twitter.com/fDhd2GFToc</a>
&mdash; Reverend Al Sharpton (@TheRevAl) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheRevAl/status/1224109538305101827?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 2, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As Lee went on, he said that Republicans will be &#8220;struck by lightning,&#8221; arguing that history will judge them harshly.
“I wouldn’t want to be standing [next] to none of those guys because they’re gonna be struck by lightning,” Lee said.  “History will say they were on the wrong side of history. The wrong side, the wrong side. So everybody — here&#8217;s the thing. I&#8217;m not speaking for anybody but myself. This is me speaking, everybody. Whoever comes out of the Democratic convention I’m voting for, because we cannot have another four years of Agent Orange.”
Spike Lee, who has called President Trump a &#8220;white supremacist,&#8221; has previously played the &#8220;wrong side of history&#8221; card when referencing the president and his supporters.
“I think that people out there really look in their heart and I truly believe people know what’s right and what’s wrong. You know that.” Lee <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/spike-lee-trump-white-supremacist-supporters-wrong-paul-bois">said in 2019</a>. “And a lot of these people getting behind this guy … they’re gonna be on the wrong side of history with him. … For money? What are you doing it for? I mean … you kneel down before the altar of the almighty dollar, then I guess all bets are off.”
Prior to that, Lee <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/im-snakebit-sore-loser-spike-lee-furious-green-paul-bois">used his Oscar acceptance speech</a> after winning an award for screenwriting last year as a call to oust President Trump from office.
“The 2020 presidential election is around the corner,” said Lee. “Let’s all mobilize, let’s all be on the right side of history. Make the moral choice between love versus hate. Let’s do the right thing!”
President Trump ripped Lee on Twitter for his “racist hit,” mocking the director for being barely able to read his notes.
“Be nice if Spike Lee could read his notes, or better yet not have to use notes at all, when doing his racist hit on your President, who has done more for African Americans (Criminal Justice Reform, Lowest Unemployment numbers in History, Tax Cuts,etc.) than almost any other Pres!” he wrote.
When Lee&#8217;s &#8220;BlacKkKlansman&#8221; lost Best Picture to &#8220;Green Book,&#8221; he responded <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/im-snakebit-sore-loser-spike-lee-furious-green-paul-bois">like a sore loser</a> and nearly stormed out of the Dolby Theater.
“After presenter Julia Roberts announced ‘<a href="https://variety.com/2019/film/news/green-book-wins-oscar-best-picture-1203146929/" data-tag="green-book">Green Book</a>‘ as Best Picture, AP reporter Andrew Dalton was one of several journalists who <a href="https://twitter.com/andyjamesdalton/status/1099889513537536000" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">noticed</a> Lee wave his arms in anger before storming out of the theater,” reported Variety last year. “However, before he could leave, he was stopped at the doors and was forced to return to his seat once the speeches had stopped.”

US-ENTERTAINMENT-FILM-STAR WARS

WATCH: Spike Lee Tells Al Sharpton Senators Will ‘Burn In Hell’ For Acquitting Trump

Al Sharpton

MSNBC

Spike Lee

On Monday, the always-inevitable U.S. Senate acquittal of President Donald Trump&#8217;s U.S. House impeachment charges barreled further along toward its natural conclusion.
&#8220;The impeachment trial of President Trump drew closer toward its almost-inevitable conclusion with closing arguments Monday, as Democratic House impeachment managers made a last-ditch push to convince the Senate that an acquittal would be a &#8216;death blow&#8217; to the ability to hold a president in check, while Trump’s defense team accused the Democrats of engaging in a rushed, partisan, unjustified endeavor,&#8221; Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-trial-nears-end-with-closing-arguments">reported</a>.
The outlet is predicting that Trump&#8217;s formal acquittal vote may happen as soon as Wednesday — seemingly as good a guess as any.
House impeachment manager Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) &#8220;addressed an argument put forth by Trump legal team member Alan Dershowitz, who claimed that Trump was working in the national interest, and not his personal interest, by asking Ukraine to investigate possible corruption related to former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter,&#8221; the cable news giant continued. &#8220;Dershowitz asserted that even if Trump was acting to aid his own re-election if he believes his re-election to be in the nation&#8217;s best interest, it would be proper.&#8221;
Another prominent Trump impeachment defense attorney, former federal judge and Clinton-era special counsel Ken Starr, also argued earlier on Monday against a freewheeling, exceedingly broad interpretation of Congress&#8217; impeachment power — including those impeachments haphazardly attempted with little substantive grist to back them up.
&#8220;They’ve got the power, but that doesn’t mean that anything goes,&#8221; Starr said on the Senate floor, as Fox News noted. &#8220;Did the House Judiciary Committee rush to judgment in fashioning the articles of impeachment? Did it carefully gather the facts, assess the facts, before it concluded we need nothing more than the panel of very distinguished professors and the splendid presentations by both the majority counsel and the minority counsel? What was being said in the sounds of silence was this: we don’t have time to follow the rules.&#8221;
In a <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/this-whole-pathetic-impeachment-effort-was-worse-than-a-waste-of-time/">New York Post op-ed</a> over the weekend, I decried the Democrats&#8217; partisan impeachment effort as &#8220;pathetic&#8221; and &#8220;worse than a waste of time&#8221;:
<blockquote>
After months of hype and pseudo-drama ginned up by the left, public and secret testimony and breathless “smoking-gun” headlines, it’s taking the Senate just two weeks to <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/senate-votes-against-new-witnesses-in-trump-impeachment-trial/" data-reader-unique-id="2">bring an end, finally, to the impeachment circus</a>. And it is ending with the always-inevitable acquittal of President Trump.
What a tragic, monumental waste of time it has been. After all, anyone capable of rudimentary arithmetic could have seen this foreordained outcome coming from Day One. &#8230;
Alas, to call it a mere waste of time is likely far too charitable. The Democrats took stock of the decrepit state of our national politics, the bitterly fractious nature of our partisan tribalism, the pathetic regard the American people have for their Congress and took a sledgehammer to it all. The most immediate tangible result of this failed gambit will be to only further coarsen and debase our politics. &#8230;
Most damaging of all, the Democrats’ pursuit of the draconian remedy of impeachment based on their claims of Trump’s corrupt subjective intentions on a diplomatic phone call has set a truly reckless precedent for the future. The general conduct of foreign policy is a core Article II function constitutionally vested in the president, and soliciting a “quid pro quo” while acting lawfully amounts to constitutionally protected free speech.
For Democrats to argue that Trump’s purportedly corrupt motive somehow transmogrifies such constitutionally protected conduct into an impeachable offense is nothing short of astonishing. Their zeal to impeach for what amounts to a policy disagreement over a diplomatic phone call reeks of the “maladministration” impeachment standard the Framers deliberated and then conscientiously rejected at the 1787 constitutional convention.
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Democrats are making their final <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/impeachment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#impeachment</a> arguments right this second. 
But there&#39;s no way around it. This whole sham has been a waste of time and resources.
Move on. <a href="https://t.co/6pHIece54X">https://t.co/6pHIece54X</a>
&mdash; Oversight Committee Republicans (@GOPoversight) <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1224367498180677633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 3, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Senate Impeachment Trial Of President Trump Continues

ALMOST OVER: Senate Impeachment Trial Reaches Closing Arguments

John Roberts

Republican Party

Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, who has been a frequent commentator on all things pertaining to the Democrats&#8217; impeachment effort of President Donald Trump, has the following piece this weekend in the <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/this-whole-pathetic-impeachment-effort-was-worse-than-a-waste-of-time/">New York Post</a>.
After months of hype and pseudo-drama ginned up by the left, public and secret testimony and breathless “smoking-gun” headlines, it’s taking the Senate just two weeks to <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/senate-votes-against-new-witnesses-in-trump-impeachment-trial/" data-reader-unique-id="2">bring an end, finally, to the impeachment circus</a>. And it is ending with the always-inevitable acquittal of President Trump.
What a tragic, monumental waste of time it has been. After all, anyone capable of rudimentary arithmetic could have seen this foreordained outcome coming from Day One.
Indeed, it’s not entirely clear why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the rest of the leading luminaries of the Democratic Party even decided to embark upon this national exercise in political self-flagellation. Math is a stubborn thing, and Democrats constitute a Senate minority — a far cry from the two-thirds supermajority required for conviction under Article I of the Constitution.
It is true, of course, that many on the left have been juiced up by an all-encompassing impeachment fervor since the day President Trump was inaugurated. Who can forget the infamous Washington Post headline from Inauguration Day 2017: “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.”
But impeach him for this? Really?
Democrats clearly resorted to this tepid, half-hearted effort after special counsel Robert Mueller failed to deliver the goods on Russiagate. No rational observer can earnestly believe that a sober reading of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky — the allegedly nefarious transcript that takes up all of a whopping five pages — actually amounts to an impeachable offense.
Hook up Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler to a polygraph and they may well admit as much. But after Mueller struck out, Pelosi needed some sort of grist to appease Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the crazy far-left caucus.
Alas, to call it a mere waste of time is likely far too charitable. The Democrats took stock of the decrepit state of our national politics, the bitterly fractious nature of our partisan tribalism, the pathetic regard the American people have for their Congress and took a sledgehammer to it all. The most immediate tangible result of this failed gambit will be to only further coarsen and debase our politics.
The trials and tribulations of Hunter Biden will now become an even more regular fixture of the Democratic presidential primary commentariat. And if Uncle Joe is the nominee, we won’t <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/trump-lawyers-hunter-bidens-burisma-job-reason-enough-to-seek-probe/" data-reader-unique-id="39">stop hearing about Hunter Biden</a> throughout the general election, either. It’s tough to see how anyone could see that as healthy for the republic.
Whatever political damage Democrats think they have done to the president, furthermore, it is more than countered by the way this stunt has galvanized the president’s core supporters to rally to his side. There is no reliable polling showing that impeachment is a net political winner for Democrats.
<a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/this-whole-pathetic-impeachment-effort-was-worse-than-a-waste-of-time/">Read the rest of the piece here</a>.
&nbsp;
RELATED: <a href="http://lp.dailywire.com/getelectionwire/">Sign up here for Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer’s weekly newsletter on election news, polling data, and analysis: “Election Wire.”</a>

Hammer At The ‘New York Post’: This Whole Pathetic Impeachment Effort Was Worse Than A Waste Of Time

Adam Schiff

Charles Schumer

Jerry Nadler

Keeping up appearance is apparently not in the Democratic Party&#8217;s skillset.
Despite the &#8220;somber&#8221; and &#8220;sullen&#8221; atmosphere surrounding President Donald Trump&#8217;s impeachment, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) can be seen clowning around in front of reporters prior to a press conference, an act of impropriety that even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) could not afford to tolerate. Take a look at this uncut gem of a video:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Chuck Schumer scolds Kamala Harris for messing around at impeachment press conference<a href="https://t.co/i2eUI8vEbM">https://t.co/i2eUI8vEbM</a> <a href="https://t.co/khIlDx67Kr">pic.twitter.com/khIlDx67Kr</a>
&mdash; RNC Research (@RNCResearch) <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1223285774424182790?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
People on social media roundly mocked the moment, noting that it highlights how the Democrats have been conning Americans with all their talk about President Trump&#8217;s impeachment allegedly being a serious, non-partisan affair that is all about upholding the Founding Fathers&#8217; vision of constitutional self-governance.
&#8220;Schumer just scolded her like a petulant child,&#8221; said one Twitter user. Where’s the girl power squad coming to her defense. Will she let this MAN embarrass her and get away [with] it.&#8221;
&#8220;Maybe she smoked a blunt and thought something was funny. [You] know how cool she is&#8230;&#8221; said another user.
&#8220;All she did was chuckle through her goofy campaign. She&#8217;s not a serious person and shouldn&#8217;t be taken seriously,&#8221; said another.
This is not the first time Harris has acted like a goofball on camera shortly before donning her impeachment game face to talk about the sadness and shame everyone surely feels for being forced to bear the undue burden of impeaching an American president. In fact, this <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-kamala-harris-smiles-before-talking-about-solemn-serious-impeachment">happened just two weeks ago</a>.
Speaking with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt after being sworn in as a juror in the Senate trial, Harris appeared to give a gleeful smile and grin to someone off-camera before quickly putting on a serious mask in order to talk about the impeachment as if it were a sad day for America and a burden that she and the Democrats have been forced to unfairly bear for the good of the nation.
“Can you start just by taking us through the moments that you just experienced on the floor of the Senate, and what the task is at hand?” Hunt asked Harris.
“This is a solemn, serious moment,” Harris said. “These are the most serious charges brought in the history of our country against a president. The moment we just experienced, I think, is highlighting the importance of doing impartial justice and taking seriously the importance of listening to the evidence and the importance of receiving evidence, both in terms of witnesses and in terms of documents. Because the American people and the Constitution of the United States require that we demand all evidence so that we can follow the facts and the evidence where they lead.”
“Do you think the Senate is capable of conducting a fair trial?” asked Hunt.
“If the United States Senate cannot conduct a fair trial, then we can talk about the beginning of the end to our democracy and our system of justice,” Harris responded.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“If the Senate does not conduct a fair trial, then we can begin to talk about the end of our democracy.” <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KamalaHarris</a> discusses the Senate impeachment trial with <a href="https://twitter.com/kasie?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Kasie</a>, calls for witnesses to be included <a href="https://t.co/t04I1LyISe">pic.twitter.com/t04I1LyISe</a>
&mdash; Kasie DC (@KasieDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/KasieDC/status/1217866142833881089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 16, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
According to a recent report from The New York Times, Harris has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nyt-kamala-harris-considers-major-move-backing-biden-follows-bidens-vp-comments">considering an endorsement</a> of former Vice President Joe Biden, which would boost her odds of becoming his eventual running mate.

Screen Shot 2020-01-31 at 10.45.39 AM

WATCH: Chuck Schumer Admonishes Kamala Harris For Clowning Around At Impeachment Conference

Kamala Harris

Famed Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a key part of President Donald Trump&#8217;s impeachment legal defense team, is under fire for a line of argumentation he has advanced this week on the Senate floor.
“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said on the floor, as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/impeachment-q-and-a-moments-that-mattered-109272">reported</a> by Politico. “And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
According to Politico (which, incidentally, uses the term &#8220;unitary executive theory&#8221; while clearly <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1222991659417448448">not understanding what it means</a>), Dershowitz&#8217;s contention is &#8220;well outside the mainstream of legal scholars.&#8221; The National Law Journal, which is widely read within the legal profession, also has a paywalled <a href="https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/01/30/complete-nonsense-scholars-denounce-dershowitzs-trump-trial-arguments">piece today</a> entitled, &#8220;&#8216;Complete Nonsense&#8217;: Scholars Denounce Dershowitz&#8217;s Trump Trial Arguments.&#8221;
But it is those &#8220;scholars&#8221; who are, in fact, the ones peddling nonsense. Alan Dershowitz is emphatically correct. A president&#8217;s <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-corrupt-motives-doctrine-11580343258?mod=e2two">subjective motives</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/opinion/trump-impeachment-defense.html">nebulous fusion</a> of political and national interests cannot transform <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/trumps-ukraine-money-holdup-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-breach-of-the-law/">constitutionally lawful conduct</a>, such as a president engaging in a core foreign policy function, into an impeachable offense.
What&#8217;s more, a &#8220;quid pro quo,&#8221; if conducted within the context of a political actor carrying out his constitutional authority, amounts to constitutionally protected free speech. I made this argument in November both here at <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-there-is-one-terrific-impeachment-defense-that-the-white-house-is-not-making">The Daily Wire</a> and at the <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/26/why-trumps-ukraine-demands-werent-remotely-illegal/">New York Post</a>.
&#8220;In 2014, a Texas grand jury indicted then-Gov. Rick Perry for supposedly abusing his official capacity when he threatened to withhold $7.5 million in funding for the Travis County district attorney’s public integrity unit unless the troubled DA ­resigned her post,&#8221; I wrote at the Post. This was clearly a &#8220;quid pro quo,&#8221; but it was one executed in the context of Gov. Perry exercising his authority clearly vested in him by the Texas Constitution. Therefore, I noted that &#8220;an illustrious and ideologically diverse group of legal scholars &#8230; argued that the First Amendment protects a governmental official’s right to threaten taking a lawful action to attain a preferred political outcome.&#8221; They were vindicated:
<blockquote>The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the Lone Star State’s highest court for criminal cases, agreed. “Public servants have a First Amendment right to engage in expression, even threats, regarding their official duties,” the court held. “Many threats that … public servants make as part of the normal functioning of government” would be criminalized under the special prosecutor’s legal theory, the court continued.</blockquote>
Returning to the current impeachment of President Trump, Democrats would be hard-pressed to argue that constitutionally protected free speech can somehow fit the &#8220;high crimes and misdemeanors&#8221; impeachment criterion of Article II. After all, political exchanges for political value are utterly commonplace in our politics: Every high school civics student learns about the congressional practice of <a href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/logrolling">logrolling</a>.
And it is simply implausible to argue that a political actor&#8217;s exercising his constitutional authority and engaging in constitutionally protected free speech could somehow become impeachable due to the &#8220;corrupt&#8221; or &#8220;mixed&#8221; nature of that political actor&#8217;s subjective motives. A couple of hypothetical examples should suffice.
In our first hypothetical, a president running for re-election has become particularly interested in prosecuting and deporting Nazis — not &#8220;alt-right&#8221; dolts, but actual, living Nazis. This is something that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/08/21/us-deports-former-nazi-guard-germany-says-many-more-are-under-investigation/">still happens</a> in America today. In our hypothetical, the president who has suddenly deemed the prosecution and deportation of Nazis a compelling national interest is fighting hard to win Florida, where he is polling neck-and-neck with his rival. He is set to campaign next week in Florida, and is hoping to make inroads with Florida&#8217;s large Jewish community. At the same time, it turns out that the particular high-profile Nazi the president wants to prosecute and deport is elusive, but a certain European country — let&#8217;s call it Ukraine — has highly pertinent information about that Nazi&#8217;s whereabouts. Is it modern Democrats&#8217; contention that the president cannot here delay foreign aid disbursement to Ukraine and only release the aid on the condition that Ukraine pledges to assist the president hunt down the specific Nazi of his ire?
In our simpler second hypothetical, the facts on the ground are the precise same as they are in real life, but for one tiny difference: Joe Biden is not seeking the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. Is it really modern Democrats&#8217; contention that Biden&#8217;s mere presence in the 2020 Democratic field (1) outright immunizes him and his son from public scrutiny about past activities, (2) ties the president&#8217;s hands with respect to ferreting out corruption in Ukraine, and (3) turns constitutionally protected free speech into activity so nefarious so as to be impeachable?
The Democrats&#8217; theory of impeachment is implausible. Worse, it would set an exceedingly dangerous precedent for future partisan impeachments. In our messy system of American politics, there is no such thing as a fine line distinguishing the personal from the national. A political actor, while engaging in constitutionally permissible conduct, is fully within his right to pursue a policy that he simultaneously believes to be in both the national and his personal interest.

Alan Dershowitz at Senate impeachment trial

HAMMER: Alan Dershowitz Is Right. ‘Mixed Motive’ Presidential Quid Pro Quos Are Not Impeachable.

Alan Dershowitz

Constitution

Foreign Policy

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

Lawsuit

Ukraine

After the unveiling of President Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan in the Middle East, numerous Senate Democrats took time out of their busy schedule to lecture him about Middle East politics. <a href="https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Van%20Hollen%20Letter%20MidEast%20Peace%20Plan.pdf">The letter they wrote</a> is historically ignorant and dangerous, which is compounded by the fact that it was signed by three leading current presidential candidates; Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
“Dear President Trump,” the letter begins, “We write to express our profound concern regarding your decision to release a one-sided Israeli-Palestinian plan forged without any Palestinian involvement or support.”
Right off the bat, Senate Democrats ignore the fact that the Palestinians have been invited to the negotiations on numerous occasions. The most prominent one was June 2019, when there was a U.S.-led peace conference in Bahrain that was boycotted by the Palestinians. They thought that a boycott would stop the conference, but Jared Kushner, the point-man for the Trump administration in this process, pushed forward.
Trump&#8217;s peace plan would ultimately give the Palestinians a state, as well as funds to help get that state up and running. The 1947 U.N. partition plan, which the Arab world outright rejected in choosing instead to declare all-out war on the nascent Jewish state, did not include $50 billion. In fact, the world mostly stood by and watched while the Jewish state was attacked from every direction.
Senate Democrats&#8217; letter espouses significant falsehoods, claiming that this plan “paves the way for full or partial Israeli annexation of the West Bank.” But there has never been much support for a call to fully annex Judea and Samaria, as that would include giving citizenship to millions of Palestinian-Arabs — many of whom call for the destruction of the state of Israel.
Senate Democrats also, un-ironically, claim that this plan “undermine[s] existing U.S. policy regarding the unilateral annexation of Crimea, eastern Ukraine.” In case the Democrats forgot, Russia invaded Crimea when the Obama administration withheld crucial military aid to the Ukranians. That was not a defensive war; it was an attack by Russia. Comparing that act with Israel winning territory in the 1967 Six-Day War, which was a defensive war, is patently insane. Additionally, Russia immediately annexed Crimea, whereas Israel limited its annexation to the city of Jerusalem — the eternal capital of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hill-the-jewish-nation">Jewish nation</a>. Contrast that to 1948, when Jordan took over that same territory, annexed it, and left the Palestinian people in refugee camps to linger and suffer until Israel militarily defeated Jordan in 1967&#8217;s defensive conflict.
Senate Democrats also conveniently ignore the last 73 years of history when they claim that “this proposal violates the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.” The Palestinians could have asserted their right to self-determination any time from 1947 through today. They can declare a state and nobody will mind. In fact, many Israelis would welcome it. In 2000, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to Yasser Arafat the Gaza Strip, 95% of the West Bank, 5% of Israel, half of Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount), and Israeli citizenship for 50,000 Palestinians. Arafat walked away without a counteroffer and instead <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-vox-lies-about-israel-again">launched the Second Intifada</a>. Democrats ignore that the Palestinians could have exercised their “right to self-determination.” Instead, they are choosing to stay as they are.
The Democrats complain about the proposed borders, referring to it as a “disconnected series of Palestinian islets.&#8221; They claim that this “would betray the vision of a sovereign Palestinian state.” Again, Palestinians could have had a say in this process. They chose not to. Additionally, the only “vision” that the Palestinians have of a Palestinian state is one that encompasses all of Israel and does not include any Jews.
The Democrats then have the audacity to accuse President Trump of interfering in the upcoming Israeli election, claiming that the timing “raises disturbing questions about [Trump&#8217;s] intention to intervene in the Israeli election process.” This accusation is audacious for multiple reasons. First, the Democratic Party at-large is currently in the middle of an impeachment of President Trump that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-impeachment-manager-admits-that-impeachment-is-about-2020-election">Democrats themselves claim</a> is intended to prevent him from winning re-election. Second, this is the third Israeli election in the last year, so this wouldn’t affect much of anything. Third, Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s chief political rival, endorsed this plan and <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/gantz-says-hell-bring-trump-peace-plan-before-knesset-for-vote-next-week/">is bringing it up for a parliamentary vote</a>. Finally, it is ironic that Senate Democrats are accusing Trump of interfering with Israeli elections when <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported">Obama did that</a> in 2015 — and nobody cared.
Democrats continue their letter with their old and tiresome “President Trump isn’t a normal president” routine. “Your administration has already reversed decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” it reads. “Previous presidents of both parties successfully maintained the respect of both Israelis and Palestinians for the United States’ role as a credible player in difficult negotiations.” But policies that haven’t worked for 50 years should be changed. Democrats think that if they try the same thing over and over — that &#8220;thing&#8221; being caving to terrorists — there will be different results. That is the definition of insanity. Trump’s only change from the standard “two-state solution” is that it recognizes the fact that Israel is the only actor that actually wants peace.
The Democrats are making the same mistakes with the Palestinians that they did with the Iranians: The assumption that everyone wants the same thing. They do not. Palestinian leadership wants to destroy Israel. Democrats either don’t know that, or simply don’t care.
 
Moshe Hill is a political analyst and a Chovevei Zion Fellow. His work can be found on <a href="https://www.ahillwithaview.com">aHillwithaView.com</a>, <a href="https://facebook.com/aHillwithaView">facebook.com/aHillwithaView</a>, and on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/TheMoHill">@TheMoHill</a>.

President Trump Meets With Israeli PM Netanyahu At The White House

HILL: Senate Democrats’ Response To Trump’s Peace Plan Is Historically Ignorant

Amy Klobuchar

Benjamin Netanyahu

Bernie Sanders

Elizabeth Warren

Israel

Jared Kushner

Middle East

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over President Donald Trump&#8217;s Senate impeachment trial, blocked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) from asking a question on Thursday during the trial.
Paul tweeted, &#8220;My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.&#8221;
Paul then tweeted out the question that Roberts censored: &#8220;My exact question was: Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. 2/2
&mdash; Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) <a href="https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1222950225020641281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Paul <a href="https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1222951600072859649">continued</a>, &#8220;My question is not about a &#8216;whistleblower&#8217; as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Chief Justice John Roberts declined to read a question from a senator from Kentucky: &quot;The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted&quot; <a href="https://t.co/WlozSBas9w">https://t.co/WlozSBas9w</a> <a href="https://t.co/KU0tfQ1pd3">pic.twitter.com/KU0tfQ1pd3</a>
&mdash; CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1222949396289130500?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Fox News&#8217; Gregg Re reported late on Wednesday:
<blockquote>Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts blocked Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul from posing a question during the Senate impeachment trial Wednesday that would have named the alleged whistleblower at the center of the case, Fox News is told — and Paul may try to force the issue during the question-and-answer session that begins Thursday afternoon.
Roberts, for now, has ball control because he actually receives the questions in note cards from senators, then reads the question aloud in the Senate chamber to be answered by either House Democratic managers or Trump&#8217;s defense team. But Fox News has learned Roberts may soon lose his grip on the proceedings amid a torrent of criticism both inside and outside the Senate.</blockquote>
Online, legal experts, politicians, and other notable figures slammed Roberts&#8217; decision to block the question from Paul on Thursday.
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, a Trump critic who also served as an impeachment witness during Democrats&#8217; partisan investigation late last year, responded by writing: &#8220;The Chief Justice again refused to read Paul&#8217;s question. This is relatively uncharted because the reading of the name does not directly violate federal law. It is a matter of decorum and restraint claimed by Roberts inherent authority.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Chief Justice again refused to read Paul&#39;s question. This is relatively uncharted because the reading of the name does not directly violate federal law. It is a matter of decorum and restraint claimed by Roberts inherent authority. <a href="https://t.co/7aoEta8RVw">https://t.co/7aoEta8RVw</a>
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1222948312753541120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) responded by writing: &#8220;.@RandPaul asked a reasonable question, and the Chief Justice is wrong to not let the managers answer the question. Regardless of whether this individual is the &#8220;whistleblower,&#8221; there are legitimate concerns that the Deep State conspired with Democrats against @realDonaldTrump.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/RandPaul?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RandPaul</a> asked a reasonable question, and the Chief Justice is wrong to not let the managers answer the question.
Regardless of whether this individual is the &quot;whistleblower,&quot; there are legitimate concerns that the Deep State conspired with Democrats against <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a>. <a href="https://t.co/cwK9HGyFgm">https://t.co/cwK9HGyFgm</a>
&mdash; Rep. Jody Hice (@CongressmanHice) <a href="https://twitter.com/CongressmanHice/status/1222958590681583618?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Donald Trump Jr. responded by writing: &#8220;Why did the Chief Justice just block a question from @RandPaul on the origins of this circus? America deserves to know the truth, including who did Schiff meet with, when and why!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Why did the Chief Justice just block a question from <a href="https://twitter.com/RandPaul?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RandPaul</a> on the origins of this circus? America deserves to know the truth, including who did Schiff meet with, when and why!
&mdash; Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) <a href="https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1222961450190344194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Republican strategist Andrew Surabian responded by writing: &#8220;I thought Adam Schiff and the media already told us that no one knows who the &#8216;whistleblower&#8217; is, so why are we being forced to treat the name of a current NSC staffer, who&#8217;s salary is paid for by American taxpayers, like he&#8217;s Lord Voldemort? #HeWhoShallNotBeNamed&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I thought Adam Schiff and the media already told us that no one knows who the &quot;whistleblower&quot; is, so why are we being forced to treat the name of a current NSC staffer, who&#39;s salary is paid for by American taxpayers, like he&#39;s Lord Voldemort?<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HeWhoShallNotBeNamed?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HeWhoShallNotBeNamed</a> <a href="https://t.co/yz1VT3VVDQ">https://t.co/yz1VT3VVDQ</a>
&mdash; Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) <a href="https://twitter.com/Surabees/status/1222967987180916736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Paul Roberts

Chief Justice Roberts Censors Questions From Rand Paul. Paul Releases It.

Rand Paul

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is &#8220;increasingly confident&#8221; that the GOP will have enough votes to block the Democrats from bringing witnesses to the floor in President Donald Trump&#8217;s impeachment trial &#8220;by Friday,&#8221; despite efforts on the part of moderate Republican Senators, including Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) to whip votes in support of calling former national security advior John Bolton to the witness stand.
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defense-team-to-close-arguments-complicated-by-bolton-reports-11580215229">The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday</a> night that McConnell is desperately whipping his caucus, looking for the votes needed to block efforts at forcing witness testimony, adding that McConnell&#8217;s vote count &#8220;wasn&#8217;t where it needed to be.&#8221; A White House source told the Journal, though, that McConnell and administration allies in Senate Republican leadership were “still in the game.&#8221;
A vote on whether to allow witness testimony is currently scheduled for Friday.
In recent days, several Republicans have expressed a desire to hear from, at least, Bolton, whose new book, &#8220;The Room Where It Happened&#8221; apparently includes new information linking Trump&#8217;s denial of foreign aid to Ukraine with his desire to see Ukrainian officials dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. But those claims are as yet unverified, and White House lawyers, in their closing arguments in the Senate yesterday, cast doubt on Bolton&#8217;s credibility as a witness &#8212; and on whether such a claim even rises to the level of an impeachable offense.
Separately, reports surfaced that acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, could take the witness stand to dispute Bolton&#8217;s assertions, giving some Senators, in favor of removing Trump from office, pause.
McConnell has allies in his fight to prevent witness testimony, the WSJ reports, and in a &#8220;secret&#8221; meeting held late Tuesday, he and other Republicans Senators made the argument that any witness testimony &#8212; even arguably relevant witness testimony &#8212; would do little to change the outcome of the trial and would simply provide Democrats with more ammunition for campaign commercials, partisan attacks, and further House inquiries. No Democrat is likely to be waved away from convicting Trump by Bolton or Mulvaney; they simply want witness testimony to injure the president further.
&#8220;Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who face competitive races in the fall, addressed their colleagues in the meeting, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Gardner said a longer trial would lead to more Democratic attacks, according to a spokesman, and Mr. Tillis called impeachment a sham. Ms. McSally’s office said she doesn’t comment on what happens in private meetings.&#8221;
According to reporters covering the trial, McConnell seems concerned less with witnesses than with trial length. The longer the Senate trial wears on, the more likely it is to impact the president, and the Senate Majority leader wants things &#8220;wrapped up.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I’m at the Senate and it’s clear to me, based on background conversations with several GOP senators, that McConnell is wary of calling witnesses and doesn’t want the trial to get out of control for his party. “Mitch wants this done,” said one of them.
&mdash; Robert Costa (@costareports) <a href="https://twitter.com/costareports/status/1222276893153603587?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 28, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Wednesday morning, that looks more likely. The latest reports coming out from the Senate all seem to indicate that McConnell is confident that he can put together a coalition of Senators unconvinced by the House managers&#8217; impeachment case, to vote to end the Senate trial.
&#8220;Republicans feel increasingly confident about prevailing,&#8221; <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/senate-republicans-calm-down-bolton-panic-107997">Politico reports</a>. &#8220;In the meeting, critics of hearing from witnesses made a &#8216;strong&#8217; case against voting for new evidence, according to two attendees. A third attendee who opposes new witnesses said the meeting seemed to solidify the position against new witnesses and documents: &#8216;I feel good.'&#8221;
A &#8220;feeling of calm had been restored&#8221; in the GOP caucus by the end of the day on Tuesday, Politico adds.

Senators Address The Media After Weekly Policy Luncheons

Report: McConnell ‘Increasingly Confident’ That He Will Have Votes To Block Witnesses In Senate Trial ‘By Friday’

Earlier this week, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer joined &#8220;The Chad Prather Show&#8221; on BlazeTV for a wide-ranging (and oftentimes humorous) discussion with the eponymous host and Blaze Media resident cowboy, Chad Prather. The conversation ran the gamut of topics, covering such diverse terrain as impeachment, recent rumors and revelations pertaining to former National Security Advisor John Bolton, the debate over transgender pronouns, and &#8230; Chad&#8217;s traveling crew getting kicked out of a bar in Bakersfield, California.
The conversation kicked off around impeachment, with Prather asking Hammer why Republicans seem so opposed to calling witnesses in the current Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. Hammer said he wasn&#8217;t sure why Republicans are so opposed — a skepticism that the podcast host shared:
<blockquote>I don&#8217;t really understand why Republicans and the president are so opposed to witnesses. I mean, look, in theory, here&#8217;s how this is supposed to work. Okay, the House and Senate are supposed to &#8230; actually do what they&#8217;re &#8230; supposed to do and write bills and pass laws and all that stuff that the Constitution talks about.
It ain&#8217;t gonna happen this year because it&#8217;s very simple: The Democrats control the House, Republicans control the Senate, [and] it&#8217;s also an election year, everyone&#8217;s risk-averse, no one&#8217;s trying to stick his or her neck out, put their foot on the line. So in that context, I don&#8217;t really understand this Republican resistance to calling witnesses. Drag this thing out. How is Hunter Biden getting up there not going to help with the president and Republicans come November? I don&#8217;t see it.</blockquote>
The conversation quickly shifted to the news surrounding Bolton, with Hammer offering his take on what we know so far:
<blockquote>So the worst part is &#8230; The New York Times got a copy of his book before anyone in the administration did. You know, I&#8217;m not gonna say John Bolton had anything to do with that, but it&#8217;s pretty unforeseeable that John Bolton had nothing to do with that. That&#8217;s just not a good look.
And like you, I&#8217;m a longtime defender of John Bolton&#8217;s. &#8230; He&#8217;s a lifelong conservative, he really is. I mean, he went to Yale for both undergrad and law school. At Yale undergrad, he was a member of what the nerds of Yale call the Yale Political Union&#8217;s Party of the Right, which in their kind of nerdy political club is the most right-wing party possible. So he&#8217;s a lifelong Barry Goldwater-, Ronald Reagan-like conservative, so it&#8217;s a little weird to see what&#8217;s happening now.</blockquote>
Later in the conversation, the topic shifted to transgender pronouns in the federal courts — a topic that Hammer, a former judicial law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, wrote about earlier this week for <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/transgender-pronouns-fifth-circuit-rejects-them-and-lie-they-stand-on/">National Review</a>. Hammer explained the three reasons why he thinks conservatives must not cave on this issue:
<blockquote>There are &#8230; three reasons why I think we really should care. One is the truth, inherently, is worth defending. Truth should be defended for the sake of truth. I mean, that&#8217;s kind of historically speaking, the entire purpose of debate in the academy, going back to Socrates, Aristotle, going back to all the ancients. They literally engaged in this Socratic dialogue in order to reach the truth. So if we feel like we have the truth, then it&#8217;s worth defending for its own sake.
Second, language cannot change this much, and this drastically, and remain viable. Now, some words can change meaning over time, of course. And plenty of words do change meaning over time. Like, for example, &#8220;decimate&#8221; — the word &#8220;decimate&#8221; — back in the day, the letters &#8220;dec&#8221; mean 10, so it was literally to take out one out of ten of the opposing military. Today, it just means more generally to kind of wipe out. So words can change their meaning, but words as basic as pronouns, the building blocks of distinguishing, as you quite aptly put it, between male and female genitalia — that cannot change. Words like that just cannot change for the English language to be viable.
Third, and probably the most important reason &#8230; is because there are actually really bad side effects to the transgender movement. We saw it here in Texas with <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-father-of-7-year-old-trans-child-james-younger-speaks-out-before-gag-order/">James Younger</a>. We are encouraging the premature, preteen sexualization of children. We are encouraging children to choose their own gender and engaging in oftentimes-irreversible hormonal tampering — chemical castration, frankly, is really what&#8217;s going on here. There are really corrosive, actual real-life effects of this.</blockquote>
The whole lengthy conversation is available on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj804eZqF_M">YouTube</a>.
WATCH:
<iframe title="The Impeachment of an American President | Ep 191" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Dj804eZqF_M?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-national-review-the-fifth-circuit-rejects-the-lie-of-transgender-pronouns">Hammer At &#8216;National Review&#8217;: The Fifth Circuit Rejects The Lie Of Transgender Pronouns</a>
RELATED: <a href="http://lp.dailywire.com/getelectionwire/">Sign up here for Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer’s weekly newsletter on election news, polling data, and analysis: “Election Wire”</a>

Hammer on Chad Prather Show 1.27.20

WATCH: Hammer Breaks Down Impeachment, Bolton, Transgenderism On ‘The Chad Prather Show’

Menu