Category: Impeachment

Alan Dershowitz insists Trump can’t be impeached for anything he does to get re-elected

Posted on by Laura Clawson

Alan Dershowitz uncorked a defense of Donald Trump Wednesday afternoon that left listeners stunned and bewildered, asking, “Did he really just say that?”

The answer is yes. Specifically, Dershowitz claimed, “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

So … literally any quid pro quo Trump could dream up would be unimpeachable as long as he believed it would help him get elected and that his election was in the public interest? 

Let’s give Dershowitz the benefit of the doubt. Maybe more context would help here. He started with the Israel-Palestine plan Trump unveiled on Tuesday, jumping from that to a hypothetical Israel-Palestine quid pro quo that a future Democratic president might impose, trading funding for some change in behavior on one side or the other.

“The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were, in some way, illegal,” he said, ignoring that soliciting foreign election interference is in fact illegal. “Now, we talked about motive. There are three possible motives that a political figure could have. One, a motive in the public interest. The Israel argument would be in the public interest.”

“The second is in his own political interest, and the third, which hasn’t been mentioned, would be in his own financial interest,” Dershowitz continued. “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you’re right: Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

The generous read here is that Dershowitz merely mangled an argument that, as Josh Marshall characterizes it, “with many foreign policy decisions a President is both advancing the national interest and also looking to his personal political fortunes. That cannot be an impeachable offense, he argues.” It’s a stretch to hear Dershowitz actually saying that, though. If you took out “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you’re right: your election is in the public interest” and changed the following sentence to “If a president does something that is in the public interest and that he also believes will help him get elected, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” 

But as it stands, what Dershowitz said is that a president can engage in any quid pro quo that he thinks will help him get re-elected as long as he thinks his re-election is in the public interest. “Accepting this argument would put us on a short path toward dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise. It’s incompatible with government of, by, and for the people. It’s government by egomania,” constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe tweeted.

‘The View’ Goes Off The Rails As Impeachment Lawyer Alan Dershowitz ‘Triggers’ Hosts By Defending Trump

Posted on by LifeZette

By PopZette Staff | January 29, 2020

The ABC talk show “The View” exploded on Wednesday when Alan Dershowitz defended President Donald Trump from the liberal cohosts’ attacks as they talked about the Senate impeachment trial.

Hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg came particularly unhinged while talking to Dershowitz, with the former calling his arguments “baloney” and the latter cutting him off at one point. When Behar claimed that no other constitutional scholar agreed with his assertion that a crime is necessary for impeachment, Dershowitz tried to give her a quick history lesson.

“In 18…,” Dershowitz began before Goldberg rudely cut him off, saying, “Ok, wait, wait, wait. Alan, you know, in 1492 Columbus sailed the seas blue but listen, I need us to move on.”

RELATED: Actress Evan Rachel Wood Gets Major Backlash For Calling Kobe Bryant A ‘Rapist’ After His Death

Dershowitz fired back by saying that he would not move on before he could give some historical context on impeachment, but Goldberg refused to back down.

“You’re not going to get any time because you got four people trying to ask you questions,” she said.

Undeterred, Dershowitz explained to the women that many scholars have taken their current stances on impeachment because of their personal opinions on Trump.

“Shortly after the Constitution was enacted, the dean of Columbia Law School said that the weight of authority was in favor of it being a crime,” he said. “Now, the academics all say it isn’t. Why? Because Donald Trump is being impeached. If Hillary Clinton was being impeached, they’d all be on my side.”

This simple argument was enough to cause Behar to lose it.

“That’s just baloney, that’s just baloney,” she exclaimed.

As chaos continued to erupt, Goldberg finally threatened Dershowitz by saying, “I’m moving you on or I’m cutting you off — one or the other is going to happen.”

Things only went downhill from there, as “The View’s” cohosts tried to make Dershowitz look like a hypocrite by playing a 21 year-old clip in which he said that impeachment “doesn’t have to be a crime.” Though Goldberg accused him of only changing his mind because Trump is the president, Dershowitz countered this by explaining that he actually changed his mind on this point four years ago, when he was looking at the possibility of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton being impeached if she won the presidency.

Despite the fact that the liberal cohosts were clearly ganging up on him, Dershowitz continued to hold his own. At one point, he even caused Goldberg to whine when he referenced Abraham Lincoln, saying, “You have to go back in history. Impeachment doesn’t change since the time of the Constitution.”

RELATED: Chilling Footage Emerges of Kobe Bryant’s Helicopter Flying Erratically Before Crash

“You should never have an impeachment unless there’s broad, widespread, non-partisan support — that doesn’t exist here,” he later added.

Behar, Goldberg, and their fellow liberals have this kind of visceral reaction to Dershowitz because deep down, they know he is right. This entire impeachment debacle is nothing more than pathetic vendetta from the Democratic Party, which has still not gotten over Trump beating Clinton in 2016.

In the end, the impeachment effort is nothing more than a huge waste of time, as there is virtually no chance of Trump being impeached by the Senate. All it’s accomplishing is showing Americans everywhere just how much anti-Trump hatred leftists have in their hearts.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Rocket Strikes U.S. Embassy in Baghdad
More GOP Senators Could Defect in Impeachment Trial
Bolton Manuscript Leaked, Romney and Collins May Vote Against the President

The post ‘The View’ Goes Off The Rails As Impeachment Lawyer Alan Dershowitz ‘Triggers’ Hosts By Defending Trump appeared first on The Political Insider.

Moscow Mitch’s 2020 campaign fund helped out by Trump’s impeachment defense team

Posted on by Joan McCarter

You can't make this degree of corruption up. Moscow Mitch McConnell, the guy who has promised again and again that he is working with Donald Trump's impeachment lawyers to make sure that Trump will not be convicted and removed from office, has gotten campaign donations from those lawyers. This year. For his 2020 reelection campaign.

The Louisville Courier Journal reviewed campaign finance data for McConnell, finding that Ken Starr gave the maximum allowed, $2,800, on July 31, 2019. He's been a donor to every one of McConnell's campaigns since 2020. McConnell's gotten two separate donations from Robert Ray for a total of $5,600. Those were on Sept. 30, 2019, 12 days after The Washington Post reported on the whistleblower report that Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine until the country agreed to announce an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.

McConnell's campaign blew off the glaring appearance of corruption in the transaction, taking a swipe at House Democrats. "The absence of any adequate arguments by House impeachment managers seems to be playing a pretty meaningful role however," McConnell's campaign manager Kevin Golden said. Clearly the money isn't a bribe for McConnell to ensure Trump's acquittal, because that's been a foregone conclusion from the get-go. Moscow Mitch promised it. So it must be a reward.

It's time to end McConnell's destructive stranglehold on the republic. Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end McConnell's career as Senate majority leader.

House managers and Trump defense take questions in impeachment trial: Live coverage #2

Posted on by Laura Clawson

After six days of opening arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, senators now get the chance to ask questions. Questions are submitted in writing to be read by Chief Justice John Roberts, with answers generally limited to five minutes.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:33:15 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Stabenow asks the House managers to correct “falsehoods” in the Trump team’s arguments.

Zoe Lofgren takes this fat pitch. Moves back again to the discussion of how Zelensky demonstrated that he was resistant to Trump’s demands until it was clear that assistance wasn’t coming. That point was one of the best that was developed in the Senate trial. 

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:35:49 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Next question is to the Trump team to ask if the House tried to sue about executive privilege over the Christmas break while the articles were waiting for delivery to the Senate. Which … that’s kind of a pointless question, because not only does everyone know the answer, nothing about it has any connection to the case.

Philbin — who has still taken every swing except for a pop-up by Dershowitz — clearly thinks so as well, because he’s just repeating what he said in response to another question about subpoenas.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:44:04 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

House managers given the chance to address the “overturn the election” argument from Team Trump.

Schiff takes this one—after first pointing out that the single case Trump’s team just called “pretty fast” has been in the courts for nine months and is still multiple steps away from a decision.

Schiff: “By definition if you’re impeaching a president that president is in office and has won an election. … Impeachment was put in the Constitution not as a punishment, but to protect the country.” Schiff effectively shredding the idea that you can’t impeach “close to the election” or in the first term.

Schiff also doing a terrific job in identifying the damage Trump did in withholding aid and pushing Russian conspiracy theories.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:47:17 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Trump’s team gets another chance to beat up on the House and play to the Senate with a you don’t need to hear witnesses, because dealing with important Senate stuff.

It’s clear this is one of the real “closing arguments” for the Republican side: The Senate is too important to waste it’s time discovering facts. The House needs to do all the work and deliver the case wrapped in a bow. Philbin again delivering the Trump would demand a “long list of witnesses” that would cause things to “drag on for months” threat.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:55:15 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Next to the House side, is an opportunity to smack down exactly the “witnesses would take too long” question.

Hakeem Jeffries gets the chance to take this slam dunk. Points out that the House took up to five depositions a week. Restates the scope of Trump’s crimes. Jeffries knocking this one out of the park in his details and delivery. “This. Is. A. Trial.” A top notch job in bringing the historical facts, as well as the importance of witnesses.

I do wish we would get back to how Roberts can expedite challenges.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:56:28 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And Trump’s team gets to … sigh … once again talk to issues of Trump’s executive privilege. This is at least the third time already that Philbin has had an opportunity to make claims about how Trump can shut everyone up.

If you’ve been waiting for a coffee break, consider this it.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:01:13 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin makes the case that it’s important to protect the precedent of preventing Bolton from speaking … even though neither Clinton nor Nixon blocked the testimony of a single witness during impeachment. That seems like precedent.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:04:28 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jason Crow tackles a question about dealing with information that is related to national security and the supposed “inter-agency review” that was supposed to be taking place advance of Trump releasing the military assistance. 

Crow makes it clear that there are no documents, no witnesses, no evidence to support the idea that Trump halted assistance out of some legitimate concern. Crow invites Trump to present the evidence.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:09:50 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Graham and Cruz send the House managers a question … a theoretical that asking “If Mitt Romney’s son was being paid $1 million a year by a corrupt Russian company, would it be impeachable for Obama to try to get Russia to do an investigation.”

Graham and Cruz think they’re being clever here, but Schiff smacks it down. “It’s remarkable to me that we even have to have this conversation.” Points out that FBI Director Christopher Wray has said that they would turn down such a request. “I can’t imagine any circumstance...” where withholding aid to a rival to obtain political advantage is justified.

Cruz and Graham clearly concocted this question because they’re going to hustle in front of Fox cameras at the next available break to claim that Democrats want a “Biden free zone.” That is, if someone on Fox isn’t making that case right now.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:12:37 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And “high crimes and misdemeanors” vs. criminal code again. This time to the House side where Zoe Lofgren handles it. And again, both sides keep returning to this question because in the light of Bolton’s statements, there is no doubt of Trump’s guilt.

Republicans are working on a tripartite extraction to get out of voting for witnesses.

1) Deshowitz tells us this isn’t impeachable.

2) Philbin says it would take a long time.

3) So why waste our time calling Bolton if it’s not impeachable anyway?

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:18:26 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And now Trump’s team gets to make another claim that all subpoenas from the House were invalid, because they get to define how the House does impeachment. It’s an even more ridiculous argument than the one launched by Dershowitz.

Maybe worth having the House team slam back … but it’s clearly a band-aide that no one believes and which the White House is putting up as a transparent excuse. So whether it’s worth even talking about it is debatable. 

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 8:25:52 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And once again the House is back on whether these charges are impeachable. This time the question cited Federalist No. 65 — which is the bugle call that brings forth Jerry Nadler.

Nadler polishing up some of the arguments he made earlier about the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors and going through a chunk of his previous speech at high speed.

Again, we’re going to keep returning to this “impeachable” argument, because it’s where the Republicans are hanging what’s left of their case.

Nadler points out that the House had previously given the committees subpoena power. Which is the correct response to the baseless argument that Philbin was making … and will almost certainly be making again in five minutes.

Republicans have surrendered on Trump’s guilt. They’re making a last stand with ‘So what if he did?’

Posted on by Mark Sumner

Reporting on whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has secured enough support to shut down the possibility of witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump is all over the map. Some reports have insisted that “10 or 12” Republicans are actually looking fearfully at the overwhelming public opinion in favor of witnesses, while other reports have been just as insistent that McConnell has waved enough head-pikes to successfully keep rebellion clear of dastardly facts.

But whether or not Bolton ever takes the stand in the Senate, one thing has become absolutely clear: Republicans have completely given up on the idea of claiming that Donald Trump did not extort Ukraine to gain a personal political advantage. Forget the “perfect call.” Republicans up and down the line may still be afraid to gain the Twit-ire of Trump by declaring his guilt, but the official position has moved completely away from the idea that Trump did nothing wrong and solidly into camp “So what?”

To see where Republicans are takes no more than reading the first sentence of this quote from Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana: “Let’s say it’s true, okay? Dershowitz last night explained that if you’re looking at it from a constitutional point of view, that that is not something that is impeachable.” The explanation of Alan Dershowitz, a criminal attorney playing constitutional expert on TV (with underwear on), was clearly ridiculous on its face, and hundreds of experts have said so explicitly.

But the terrible fact for a Republican Party facing a severe fact shortage is that the public is more easily confused on this point than they are on Trump’s guilt. In other words, every real constitutional expert in the nation is united around the idea that abuse of power and obstruction of justice are valid reasons for a politician to be impeached and removed. But it’s easier to pretend that that is not true than it is to keep pretending that Donald Trump did not commit extortion in the face of not just Bolton’s testimony, but also the mass of evidence presented by House managers.

Bolton’s evidence may be the tipping point, but Republicans are aware that the case against Trump has been both overwhelming and compelling from the outset—which is why the “defense” of Trump was primarily focused not on proving his innocence, but on pretending that extorting foreign involvement in an election is a perfectly valid activity.

Now, no matter how Republicans eventually vote, no matter how hard Trump tries to suppress Bolton’s manuscript, it’s clear enough that this information is going to come out. Which makes it absolutely pointless to defend Trump on the basis that he did nothing wrong.

That’s why even Lindsey Graham has given up on sticking his fingers in his ears and pretending that he has heard no evidence against Trump. Instead, Graham says, “For the sake of argument, one could assume everything attributable to John Bolton is accurate and still the House case would fall well below the standards to remove a president from office.”

”Let’s say it’s true, okay?” says Braun. ”For the sake of argument,” says Graham. If there have ever been bigger verbal white flags, they were probably waved on a battleship where someone was signing a treaty of surrender.

Republicans aren’t going to the “So what?” position because they feel it’s strong. They know it’s not strong. They’re going there because it is all they have left.

Ted Cruz: “Quid pro quo doesn’t matter. It’s a red herring. It doesn’t matter if there was a quid pro quo or not.”

x

House managers and Trump defense take questions in impeachment trial: Live coverage #1

Posted on by Laura Clawson

After six days of opening arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, senators now get the chance to ask questions. Questions are submitted in writing to be read by Chief Justice John Roberts, with answers generally limited to five minutes.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:20:04 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And we’re underway with questions coming in from Senators, through John Roberts, and out to the legal teams.

And on the very first question, Trump’s legal team is already falling back on the position that even if he did it, Trump’s actions are not impeachable — and he’s even less impossible if there was a possibility that there was some other motivation for Trump’s actions.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:20:48 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And Trump’s team is, on question one, smearing Joe Biden. Because why not.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:22:32 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Trump’s team now arguing not that Trump actually had a valid motive, but there only has to be the possibility of a valid motive. Which is like saying it’s not that he killed the man in self-defense. It’s that self-defense is a thing so … case dismissed!

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:29:34 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schumer sends a question to the House managers asking about the claims that have been learned from Bolton’s book. Provides the House team a platform to argue for Bolton, Mulvaney, and other first-hand witnesses.

Schiff: “There’s no way to have a trial without witnesses.”

Schiff uses the question to also flip the script on the previous response from the Trump team, then goes back to the restaurant conversation between Trump and Sondland. Shows that Trump asked about investigations, not “burden sharing” who would be the perfect to talk about with the ambassador to the EU.

Schiff: “Don’t wait till the book. Don’t want till March 17 then it’s in black and white.”

Schiff shows a video of Cipollone saying “Who doesn’t want to talk about the facts, impeachment shouldn’t be a shell game.” This question and answer session is going to be brutal.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:31:18 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And the next question to Trump’s team: “Would you please address the assertions that the House managers made in the response to the previous question.”

These people are going to go at it hammer and tongs.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:34:51 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Pat Philbin denies Mulvaney’s press conference statement by referencing his post press-conference lawyer-written statement retracting his press conference statement.

Philbin makes the claim that House “didn’t even try” to get Bolton’s testimony, and that asking Senate to have witnesses would cause things to drag on for months … because Trump would ask for witnesses.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:39:45 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Next question to the House managers hammers exactly the point that Philbin just lobbed “did the House ask Bolton to testify.”

Schiff: “Senators, the answer is yes, of course the House asked John Bolton to testify.” Walks through the steps: asked Bolton, he refused. Asked Kupperman, he refused. Asked Hill, she agreed. Asked Vindman, he agreed. Subpoenaed Kupperman, he sued. Bolton made it clear he would also sue. Schiff shows the argument being made in court that the House has no standing to sue for testimony. 

Schiff: “It takes your breath away, the duplicity. …. They can no longer contest the fact. So now they have fallen back on … a constitutional fringe power that a president can abuse his power with impunity.”

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:41:15 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff points at the acceptance of abuse of power as “the biggest danger of all.”

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:44:59 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Stack of Republicans give the Trump team another chance to Trump-splain what the House is asking for, rather than asking the House team.

Philbin standing up again to defend the Trump team position. Despite his deputy assistant position, it seems that Philbin is the only one on Trump’s team who is capable of making a defense of their case. Defense in this case meaning to defend Dershowitz’s idea of what is allowed in impeachment. 

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:50:48 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Question from Feinstein on links between military assistance and investigations.

Jason Crow answers that there is overwhelming evidence, despite the earlier attempt to dismiss the press conference statements, Crow points directly at Mulvaney. Crow also notes that the “no quid pro quo” conversation that Republicans love, also includes Trump telling Sondland to get Zelensky to a microphone and make him announce the investigations.

Crow points out, again, the people who should have been involved in any other motive were not informed of any other reason for Trump’s actions.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:54:08 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

A softball to the Trump team “isn’t it Trump’s place to set foreign policy instead of a bunch of deep state bureaucrats who only want to see America be France West?” 

Possible that I made up everything in that question after the word “instead.” But it was accurate to the spirit. And Philbin is sticking with that spirit by talking about those “unelected” staffers who don’t answer to the people. And then Philbin tries to define the House case as supporting staffers over Trump.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 6:56:21 PM +00:00 · Meteor Blades Romney's #2 is quite the twist. If Trump did have a personal political purpose withholding the aid but he also had national interest purposes, should he be removed? I believe that is the serial-killers- aren't-serial-killers-24/7 defense argument.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:01:09 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

So far Democrats have asked questions of only the House managers and the Republicans have only asked the Trump team. No one has tried to throw the other side a fastball.

Shaheen provides the opportunity to talk again on the subject of criminal law vs. impeachable offense, offering a set of other abuses of power that Trump might undertake.

Sylvia Garcia takes the answer, pointing out that such claims have already been dealt with in both the impeachment of Bill Clinton and impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon. All this discussion of what is impeachable may be esoteric … but it’s all Republicans have left.

With the Bolton revelations, all discussion of Trump’s guilt is just time-filler created for an audience of one.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:08:09 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

A question for both sides! And it’s from Cornyn and Blackburn, so you know it’s going to be loopy… “Why did the House not challenge Trump’s claims of executive privilege or immunity” Hmm, surprisingly reasonable, except that they’ve clearly worked this out for the Trump team to have a final word.

Hakeem Jeffries answers that Trump never claimed privilege, but make only “blanket defiance.” 

Philbin responds by saying as it has before, that the White House gets to define how the House conducts impeachments. So it didn’t have to talk.

Philbin seems like he’s going to take everything from the Trump side. Or maybe just everything that regards a matter of law. Cipollone or Sekulow may be waiting for more rant-worthy topics.

Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 · 7:11:45 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Next question concerns the idea that the aid was released on time and hits the Trump was better to Ukraine than Obama idea.

Val Demings responds on the cost to Ukraine of this fight. Demings says “it took the work of some senators in this room” to keep the aid available to Ukraine. 

Some Democrat needs to ask Trump’s team how much more Europe contributed to Ukraine over July and August to satisfy Trump’s concerns about Burden sharing. And what meetings were held with European leaders on that topic.

Hey Dems, Bolton’s Testimony Won’t Change Anything – Trump Isn’t Being Removed

Posted on by Wayne Dupree

The Democrats don’t give a damn what John Bolton or anybody else might say; they know it won’t affect the outcome at all.

What they want is the ability to accuse a few Senators, who they perceive as being vulnerable, of participating in a cover-up by voting against calling witnesses. This whole silly charade is about the 2020 election and not just the presidential election, which they already know they will probably lose.

Given that impeachment is delaying the judicial confirmation express, the sooner it ends, the better. That means it would be best to have no witnesses. But if there are any, Hunter Biden and other witnesses requested by Trump’s team must be included.

MORE NEWS: Tucker Carlson Rips Into Bolton, Compares Him to Snake from Trump’s Parable

Sen. Lindsey Graham: “I’m increasingly optimistic this ends Friday. I think the question is whether we should have additional testimony from witnesses that the House refused to call. Lets assume for a moment that John Bolton would say what the New York Times said he would say, ‘The President told me to put a freeze on the aid because I want to look at the Bidens.’ I’m paraphrasing. The President had every reason to want to look at the Bidens.

The House managers told us there’s not a scintilla of evidence the Bidens did anything wrong, this has been completely debunked, thoroughly investigated. That is a complete lie. The defense team destroyed the House’s case,”

“If after listening to Pam Bondi you’re okay with how Hunter Biden conducted himself in the Ukraine and you’re okay with Joe Biden not having a clue of what was going on, that’s more about you that it is about anything else. There’s a mountain of evidence that the Biden’s were involved in corruption. The President would have been wrong not to ask the Ukrainians to help given what we know about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.”

The Dems have done such a masterful job of deflection; it should be studied in school. They have completely taken Biden’s corruption off the table, smeared Trump, and tied up Bernie during the primaries all at the same time.

MORE NEWS: John Bolton Has a New Career: Going After Donald Trump

They learned the technique of accusing your opponent of what you are guilty of from the master, Bill Clinton. He must be very proud of his students. They have raised such an incredible stink and smokescreen; no one will ever touch Biden again. Certainly not the Republicans, nor Barr. The Bidens have been given a get out of jail free card — just like Hillary.

Actually, the only way to expose the corruption of the Deep State and the Democrats is to call witnesses, bring out everything. I don’t think there’s any chance Trump will be impeached; the votes simply aren’t there. But the Democrats had to be head-faked into demanding witnesses so the public could see exactly who the traitors are and why.

So sit back, enjoy the show, stock up on popcorn, chips, dip, and your favorite beverage. The Democrats will rue the day they pushed impeachment because the perfect storm is upon them but they are so full of hate they can’t think straight; they don’t recognize the peril they’re in!

And first and foremost, watch the plan unfold before your very eyes, the patriots planned this from the beginning!

More Stories From WayneDupree.com

 

The post Hey Dems, Bolton’s Testimony Won’t Change Anything – Trump Isn’t Being Removed appeared first on The Political Insider.

Spoiler alert: Senate Republicans are screwed no matter what they do

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

Senate Republicans seem to have finally gamed out the witness situation in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump at least a couple months past the actual vote—and they are in deep doo doo, to use a technical turn of phrase. Whether or not former national security adviser John Bolton appears as a witness in the Senate trial, his account is going to come out in book form mere months from now. As my colleague Mark Sumner writes, that's exactly why Senate Republicans are newly trying to sell the fantastical reasoning that Bolton's account doesn't matter one way or other, no matter what he ultimately says. That way, whether Americans get Bolton's account through testimony now or through his prose months from now, Senate Republicans can dismiss it as irrelevant to the matter of Trump’s removal from office. Again, this is an otherworldly take in which Trump is king and above the law, and Republicans completely shred the Constitution and everything it stands for in support of the most incompetent and corrupt president America has ever seen.

Now, as a practical matter, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn't currently have the votes to quash Bolton’s testimony, as he has said. But why end the bluff now? First, so that the White House and other Trump cultists can apply maximal pressure to the Republicans who are potentially poised to make the rest of the GOP caucus look horrible by voting in favor of the only intellectually honest thing to do—hear from witnesses. McConnell's other concern is that he's up for reelection back home, where he's deeply unpopular, and he doesn't want to be caught solely holding the bag for losing this critical vote.

Campaign Action

All that said, anything can happen over the next couple of days of questioning in the Senate trial, which, it's worth remembering, will be curated by McConnell and will not be an organic process by any means. Nonetheless, perhaps more information à la another Bolton excerpt or a Lev Parnas interview will drop, completely roiling the GOP caucus. Or not. Although Utah Sen. Mitt Romney continues to say he wants to hear from witnesses, perhaps Trump's maximal pressure campaign will squelch the Romney faction, leaving only Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (for process reasons) and Maine Sen. Susan Collins (for electoral reasons) to vote with Romney. That would leave the witness faction one vote shy of the four Republican votes necessary.

Whatever happens, my personal belief is that Senate Republicans will either fall short of what's needed to call witnesses or end up with more than four votes. No one wants to be tagged as being the "fourth vote," but if it starts to become clear in hushed conversations that the votes are there, then the witness faction will likely pick up several more votes rather than just one. People such as Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman are potential additions, more for legacy reasons than anything else. And perhaps a vulnerable Republican such as North Carolina's Thom Tillis will join Collins in determining that a no vote on witnesses would be nearly impossible to defend. But again, outside of Collins, most vulnerable Republican Senators (e.g., Tillis, McSally, Gardner) appear to have determined that hugging Trump is the only way to win reelection (or perhaps lose but still have a future in GOP circles). In any case, my guess would be that the witness vote either falls short or draws four-plus support, depending on what happens between now and Friday.

Now for a couple of side notes: Don't fall for any of this ridiculous "witness trade" talk. Not only would it be stupid for Democrats to welcome a materially irrelevant witness like Hunter Biden in order to hear from Bolton, but the whole concept of a trade is a red herring. If Republicans have the votes to call Hunter Biden or Adam Schiff, they could and can do it. They have enough people in their caucus to authorize those witnesses without getting Democrats to sign off on it. So just let them stew in their juices over that. Democrats should remain focused on Bolton. And, as Schiff pointed out Tuesday, if they want a 1-for-1 trade, let them call someone relevant, such as acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who has contradicted Bolton's account.

Finally, let's remember where this entire inquiry started—it was deemed a plank walk for Democrats at the outset when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi first announced it last fall. But she has played it masterfully, threading the needles of duty, oath of office, and public opinion all the way through. House Democrats managed to execute an inquiry that was seen as fair and has convinced a majority of the public that Trump should be removed from office, according to a preponderance of polling over the last month. Senate Republicans, at the moment, are now on the wrong side of the polling no matter what they do—whether they vote for witnesses and then acquit or forgo witnesses altogether and then acquit. Frankly, forgoing witnesses is their worst option, as a national consensus has emerged that witness testimony must be heard. If Senate Republicans choose to ignore some 70% of the population, they will pay the price at the ballot box in November. However, if they vote for witnesses, it opens a Pandora's box and McConnell loses control of the process. Win-win for Democrats. 

Ultimately, regardless of what Senate Republicans do, House Democrats still have the final play. If they aren't satisfied with the process the GOP-led Senate has undertaken, Pelosi and Schiff now have more reason than ever to subpoena Bolton's testimony. No one can be 100% sure of what Bolton would say under oath, but House Democrats still have the opportunity to have the final say on what the public hears when Senate Republicans conclude their sham trial. That's pretty damn close to a checkmate in terms of congressional chess-playing. 

Three Democratic Senators May Vote to Acquit Trump of Impeachment

Posted on by Guest Author

According to a new report, three moderate Democratic senators have signaled they might vote to acquit President Donald Trump in the upper chamber’s impeachment trial.

Sens. Joe Manchin, Doug Jones and Kyrsten Sinema Might Vote to Acquit Trump

Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Doug Jones of Alabama and Kyrsten Sinema could break ranks with their Democratic colleagues. At least one of them has also said they could vote in favor of only one impeachment article — the abuse of power — but oppose obstruction of Congress.

This week in an interview with Politico, Manchin said he will only support only one of the articles if he “can explain one and not the other.” He has yet to decide on whether he will run for re-election in 2024, said he won’t make a final decision on how he will vote until after the trial concludes.

“I know it’s hard to believe that. But I really am [undecided]. But I have not made a final decision. Every day, I hear something, I think ‘this is compelling, that’s compelling,’” Manchin said. “Everyone’s struggling a little bit.”

RELATED: Adam Schiff Wants Trump Removed Because He Won’t Do “What’s Right For This Country”

The most vulnerable Senate incumbent among Democrats is Jones, who had previously criticized the “obstruction of Congress” article and has said he is “troubled” that House Democrats failed to call White House officials as witnesses.

“I don’t think I’ve totally decided. I certainly have [been] leaning one way or the other. That needle moves” Jones told Politico. “I am leaning in certain ways but I want to hear, I truly, honestly, want to hear the entire trial.”

Sinema’s silence on impeachment suggests her vote is still undecided. A spokesperson said she supports gathering more evidence to “make a more fully informed decision at the end of the trial.”

Dems Push for John Bolton to Testify

Theses senators’ comments come as Democrats now want to call former White House National Security Advisor John Bolton to testify as a witness. The New York Times reported Sunday that Bolton’s upcoming book reveals that President Trump wanted to tie U.S. military to Ukraine to inquiries into allegations of corruption in former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden.

President Trump has rejected these claims, and took direct aim at Bolton Wednesday morning in a pair of tweets.

“For a guy who couldn’t get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn’t get approved for anything since, ‘begged’ me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him despite many saying ‘Don’t do it, sir,’ takes the job, mistakenly says ‘Libyan Model’ on T.V., and many more mistakes of judgement [sic], gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?” the president wrote.

RELATED: Trump Blasts Bolton Over ‘Nasty’ and ‘Untrue’ Book

Some liberals have urged others to call these senators and ask them to impeach Donald Trump.

What’s stopping conservatives from urging them to do the opposite?

The post Three Democratic Senators May Vote to Acquit Trump of Impeachment appeared first on The Political Insider.

White House reportedly issues ‘formal threat’ to block John Bolton from publishing book

Posted on by Laura Clawson

The Trump White House is trying to stop former national security adviser John Bolton’s book from being published, CNN is reporting. The “formal threat” comes in the form of a letter, CNN’s sources say, but none of the parties involved—the White House, Bolton himself, or his publisher, Simon & Schuster—commented.

As Karen Tumulty tweeted, get ready for the advertising campaign dubbing this “the book the White House doesn’t want you to read,” but what the United States needs is not Bolton’s book, it’s Bolton’s testimony.

Bolton is a warmonger with blood on his hands and decades of faithful service to the Republican cause. But here, he has information the country needs to hear, not by giving him money for a book but under oath in the impeachment trial. The White House threat is not, most likely, about the book itself, either. It’s about sending a message to Republican senators not to vote to hear him, and to make regular people think of him as tainted.

The White House needs to discredit Bolton somehow, with polls showing big majorities in support of witnesses at the impeachment trial. Putting a cloud over him separate from the Senate vote on witnesses is the first move. There will be more—but all the people watching the White House campaign against Bolton need to remember that it’s not about him. It’s about what he witnessed Donald Trump saying and doing during his time as Trump’s close adviser.

Update:

x