Category: Recommended

Pelosi slams Senate sham trial: ‘You can’t be acquitted’ if you don’t have witnesses

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hasn't played all her cards yet, and she's already declaring the Senate trial a sham. “I disagree with the idea that he could be acquitted," Pelosi told the South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Board on Friday. “You can’t be acquitted if you don’t have a trial, and you can’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and you don’t have documents."

Pelosi made the comments heading into a day of closing arguments in which Senate Republicans appeared poised for a vote to quash witness testimony entirely with an acquittal vote soon to follow. (That vote is now expected to be held next Wednesday, following the State of the Union.)

Pelosi also directed withering criticism at Trump's defense team. "To say in a proceeding in the Senate if a president thinks that his election is in the best interests of the country anything is justified," she said, referencing the argument made by Alan Dershowitz, "I don’t know how they have any integrity or respect left.” 

Pelosi said the argument was completely antithetical to the Constitution. “What you heard the president’s lawyer say so undermined what is a democracy, our republic, [by suggesting the Constitution’s] Article II says I can do whatever I want," she said. "No, it doesn’t. That’s not what the Constitution is about."

Pelosi also laid blame for the procedure squarely at Leader Mitch McConnell's feet. “The founders always had in their mind that there could be a rogue president, and that’s why they put guardrails in the Constitution. And impeachment," she noted. "But they probably didn’t figure we would have a rogue president and a rogue Mitch McConnell."

Pelosi said in the interview that House Democrats would continue their push in the courts for oversight and more subpoenas to be honored, “or else we have a monarchy.”

Pelosi clearly isn't finished yet. And given all the loose ends being left by Senate Republicans, she will almost surely spend the rest of 2020 pulling those threads. It's honestly a mystery that McConnell thinks he's going to get away without calling witnesses without Pelosi making life a living hell for Senate Republicans from here till November. 

New Bolton revelation: ‘The kind of bombshell Mitch McConnell has been afraid of all along’

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

Former national security adviser John Bolton’s new revelation about White House counsel Pat Cipollone being in on Trump’s Ukraine conspiracy as early as May 2019 is dropping like a bomb on Washington. "This is the kind of bombshell that Mitch McConnell has been afraid of all along," reporter Kasie Hunt said on MSNBC.

Indeed, a day that seemed almost certainly headed toward a no-witness vote and fast acquittal just in time for Donald Trump’s victory laps on Fox News and at next week’s State of the Union address now holds a slew of question marks. Hill reporters are now musing that the Senate trial could go into next week, “maybe even mid-week,” tweeted Politico’s John Bresnahan. Trump’s already in damage control, tweeting out fantasies like a drunken sailor on hallucinogens. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski still hasn’t announced her vote on witnesses, which is bad news for McConnell because she hasn’t owed the GOP caucus anything since 2010, when she won reelection as a write-in candidate. Murkowski’s now a “no” on witnesses.

As Americans, we should still be rooting for witnesses. The citizenry deserves to hear from Bolton in his own words, among others.

But as Democrats, we can also feast on the political peril this represents for Republicans, who have now admitted that Trump did everything House managers said he did and that they just don’t care. As commentators on MSNBC absorbed the new Bolton bombshell, they almost unanimously declared it an electoral disaster in the making for Senate Republicans, especially given where public opinion has been on witnesses all along. 

"This makes that vote against witnesses political suicide,” former GOP operative Nicolle Wallace observed, adding, “I hope they take it."

Even former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill was bullish on the prospects for Democrats. “If these Republicans shut this trial down and say, No more,” she said, “it is a great gift to the Democrats in November.”

As Sen. Kamala Harris noted before the news dropped, "There can be no true exoneration if there's not been a fair trial. Period." Now more than ever, Senate Republicans are also on trial. At least some of them seem to know it.

Elizabeth Warren asks killer trial question on Supreme Court legitimacy. Chief Justice Roberts wilts

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren clearly wanted Chief Justice John Roberts to ponder his place in history Thursday when she sent this doozy to him to read aloud at the Senate impeachment trial: “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?” 

In other words: Hey, we all know this is a sham trial, the American people know this is a sham trial. Any chance you’ll do the right thing and protect the integrity of the court and your legacy by casting your vote for witnesses in the event of a 50-50 tie? Kapowie!

Do yourself a favor and watch Roberts read it below.

x

Harvard professor repeatedly cited by Dershowitz in impeachment trial calls Trump defense a ‘joke’

Posted on by Walter Einenkel

Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team has about as much integrity as a fishing net made out of toilet paper. On Wednesday, lawyer Alan Dershowitz provided one of the most truly wicked and specious arguments in the history of law when he explained during Trump’s Senate impeachment trial that a public official, no matter how corrupt, could not commit a crime if they believe that their corrupt action is in the public interest. His exact quote was, “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.”

Dershowitz, like the toadstool of a person he is, later tweeted that he didn’t say what he said and that people saying he did were misunderstanding what he said. He went on to say he stood by what he didn’t say, but he didn’t say it … so don’t say he said it. A large part of Dershowitz’s theatrical display of intellectual dishonesty was dedicated to citing fellow Harvard Law professor Nikolas Bowie as someone who agreed with the argument that abuse of power does not warrant impeachment. Bowie then spoke with Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin on CNN to clear up what he actually wrote and believes.

Abuse of power is a crime. There are people around the country who have been convicted of it recently. It's a crime that’s existed since this country was founded. And it's a criminal offense. To equate it with "maladministration," as my colleague professor Dershowitz does, is the equivalent of saying that criminal corruption is the same thing as getting a bad performance evaluation. “Maladministration” is just an 18th-century term for doing a bad thing at your job, for, you know, not filing papers correctly. And I think he’s right: A president shouldn’t be impeached for getting a bad performance evaluation. But to equate that with criminal corruption? That’s a joke.

He’s right. But, like everything in this current authoritarian climate, it’s a terrible, terrible joke.

x

Trump defense in court: Impeachment, not courts, is proper remedy for a president ignoring subpoenas

Posted on by Hunter

There were gasps and laughter on the Senate floor when House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff announced this: Even as Trump's lawyers insisted repeatedly, over and over, that a president cannot be impeached for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas, his Bill Barr-led Department of Justice is in court, today, insisting that Congress absolutely can respond to a president refusing to abide by congressional subpoenas by ... impeaching that president.

CNN reports, "Justice Department lawyer James Burnham said without hesitation that the House can use its impeachment powers, among other options, like withholding appropriations." The courts have no role in enforcing subpoenas directed at the executive branch—that has been the repeated Trump court argument. In the Senate, in the meantime, Trump's team is simultaneously arguing that impeachment cannot be used in response to a president's team ignoring subpoenas, that it must be argued through the courts.

The Trump defense is inherently corrupt. The Republican defense, in the Senate, is inherently corrupt.

x

Rand Paul is determined to show that he is more vile than anyone else in Congress

Posted on by Mark Sumner

On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts read more than 80 questions that had been submitted to him by lawmakers in the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump. That included questions that were long enough to include whole right-wing conspiracy theories and multiple questions that included the names of people who appear in no document in the whole investigation, but whom Republicans accuse of being involved in a conspiracy involving John Bolton and the whistleblower. 

But there was one question that Roberts refused to read—a question from Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who intentionally placed in his question the name that right-wing publications have insisted is that of the whistleblower. Roberts refused to read the question. And today Paul is going to do it again.

From the very beginning, the whistleblower made it clear that he or she was not a firsthand witness to events but had only been told about actions that were reasons for concern. Based on that information, the whistleblower raised those concerns with the intelligence community inspector general. Then, following the strict instructions of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, the whistleblower contacted a specific staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, who instructed the whistleblower in the next appropriate step.

All of this is defined by law. House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff has made it clear that he did not meet with the whistleblower. He has made it clear that he does not know the whistleblower’s name. He has also made it clear that his staff did not assist in preparing the whistleblower’s complaint or provide any research to the whistleblower, or offer any assistance whatsoever beyond the instructions that are required by the law—a law that has, in the past, been strongly supported by Republicans.

There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that Schiff or anyone on his staff did the slightest thing wrong in regard to the whistleblower.

There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that the whistleblower took any step that was not strictly legal, strictly moral, and strictly out of concern for the nation.

There is absolutely no doubt that what Rand Paul is doing is petty, vile, mean-spirited, and definitively evil, with no intent but to bring harm to an individual who acted entirely within the law.

On Thursday, Paul has already declared that he is going to do it again. And if what he accomplishes from this is the ruin of someone who was doing their best for the nation—or the ruin of someone who is not the whistleblower, since the name Paul is using came from no official source—he’s perfectly okay with that.

What should senators ask in the last eight hours of the impeachment Q&A?

Posted on by Mark Sumner

A republic, if you can keep it. A republic, if you can keep it. A republic, if you can keep It. A republic … until Friday.

Republicans in the Senate are set to vote not just that Donald Trump can get away with extorting a foreign government into interfering in the 2020 election, but that such an act isn’t even worthy of their time. They have, sniff, important things to do. As a demonstration of their disdain for democracy, while Republicans prepare to press the plunger on our old friend the Fascism Watch, they’re indulging themselves by burning up the final Q&A session of democracy by asking questions that aren’t questions at all, but just a head start on smearing political opponents.

So with eight hours left before Republicans provide a definitive “No, you can’t” to Benjamin Franklin’s much-quoted remark, this seems like a good time to ponder: What are the right questions to ask, here at the end of all things?

On Wednesday, the eight hours of questions in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump were more than a little agonizing. Democrats—both senators and the House impeachment managers—stayed in there and kept up the pretense that all of this still means something. Exhausted as they all must be at this point, Adam Schiff was still swinging for the fences on every response, and the other members of the team—Jason Crow, Val Demings, Sylvia Garcia, Hakeem Jeffries, Zoe Lofgren, and Jerry Nadler—continued on amazingly undaunted.

Meanwhile, across the aisle, Republicans were engaged in a snickerfest, with Ted Cruz and company stopping just short of handing John Roberts a question to read on the legal position of I.C. Wiener. In fact, considering that Rand Paul authored one note that Roberts refused to read, it could have been worse.

But if Cruz’s parade of “Is Joe Biden just evil, or is he also the evil master of the evil whistleblower?” questions are what America doesn’t need as the ship of state circles the whirlpool, what are the right questions? What notes should senators be dropping in Roberts’ hands that could still embarrass the unembarrassable, shine a light in the smoggy darkness, and maybe snatch at least a hint of victory back from the jaws of corruption?

What question would you ask, if you had the opportunity? If you were in the Senate chamber today and could pass just one note up to John Roberts, knowing that a vote to end democracy is 24 hours away, what would you want him to say? Could you save the nation ... or at least give the people drowning it one last middle finger as we’re going down?

x

Senate Republicans: Screw what voters want. It’s impeachment cover-up time

Posted on by Laura Clawson

Senate Republicans have come back to where they started: they’re going to stage an impeachment cover-up, and they’re not going to half-ass it. With Donald Trump in full public bully mode and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell twisting arms behind the scenes, the number of Republicans willing to vote for a fair trial is expected to be less than the necessary four—and even the one or two Republicans who vote to hear from witnesses will do so with McConnell’s permission, knowing that they aren’t changing the outcome.

This recommitment to cover-up comes as poll after poll shows anywhere from 66% to 80% of Americans—including substantial percentages of Republicans—wanting witnesses in the impeachment trial. Republican senators do not care.

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s take is that “For the sake of argument, one could assume everything attributable to John Bolton is accurate, and still the House would fall well below the standards to remove a president from office.” But we never expected Graham to stand up to the latest powerful figure he’s attached himself to in a bid for greater relevance.

”We don’t need Mr. Bolton to come in and to extend this show longer, along with any other witnesses people might want, and occupy all of our time here in the Senate for the next few weeks, maybe even months,” said Sen. John Cornyn. Heaven forbid the Senate waste its time on frivolous things like finding out how far the president went to undermine American democracy! 

Sen. Susan Collins may vote to hear witnesses, with McConnell’s permission, so she can keep duping news outlets like The New York Times into writing long-discredited nonsense like that “She is the rare member of her party who still seeks to appeal to a broad range of independent and even Democratic voters as well as Republicans.”

Senate Republicans have made it clear: They will acquit Trump even if they are somehow forced to acknowledge that he did what all the evidence shows he did, withholding military aid to Ukraine to pressure the nation to help him out in the 2020 elections by digging up dirt—or at least publicly announcing that there was dirt to be dug—on the Democratic opponent he saw as most threatening at that time. Senate Republicans don’t care what he did. They just want to stay in power, and they think Trump is their best bet for doing so. And even though voters have seen through their intent to cover up, they’re going through with it anyway, because apparently Republicans are convinced it’s better to have people know you’re covering something up than to have them knowing what lies under the covers.

Watch this ‘Daily Show’ truck blast clips of Trump mocking senators in downtown Washington D.C.

Posted on by Marissa Higgins

Donald Trump has a long history of insulting people, including senators. Unsurprisingly, he has no problem insulting progressives, like calling Sen. Bernie Sanders “crazy” and Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Pochahontas.” He’s also insulted a number of Republicans, including saying that Sen. Mitt Romney is “not a smart person,” and of course, dubbing Sen. Ted Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.” Now, The Daily Show has compiled clips of these insults into a loop video that’s playing on the side of a truck that’s bopping around Washington D.C. during his impeachment trial, as reported by the Washingtonian. Because this video focuses on senators, we don’t even need to get into all of the times he has insulted women, including Hillary Clinton.

Here is the original video.

x

Here is what The Daily Show truck driving around downtown Washington D.C. looks like.

x

The Washingtonian reports that The Daily Show has been airing 30- and 60-second versions of this video on local news channels in D.C. The publication says the truck has been on the move in the Capitol since Monday.

“We’re trying to always think of ways to take jokes that we have and take them outside the boundaries of 11:00 to 11:30. Like, how can we exist in the real world? How can we get closer to the people that we’re covering?” Ramin Hedayati, a producer at The Daily Show, told the Washingtonian in an interview. “Literally driving a truck outside of the building they’re in is a way to do that.”

Of course, it’s far from the first time The Daily Show has taken the Trump administration to task. On Monday, host Trevor Noah called out Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, as well as Trump’s defense lawyers.

Trump attacks everyone from government officials to private citizens seemingly with little regard to the possible consequences. People say that actions speak louder than words, but with Trump, his words and actions actually line up pretty well—and it’s nothing good.

Democrat to offer motion requiring Chief Justice Roberts to order witnesses, documents

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen will offer a motion in Donald Trump's impeachment trial Friday to require Chief Justice John Roberts to subpoena documents and witnesses, if he determines they are relevant to the articles of impeachment, and to exercise his authority to rule on all issues of evidence, including executive privilege.

"A fair trial includes relevant documents and witnesses. And in a fair trial the judge determines what evidence is admitted," Van Hollen said in a statement announcing the motion. He said his effort "ensures the Chief Justice will serve the same role as a judge in any trial across our country—to allow the Senate access to the facts they need to get to the truth." He adds "No Republican can question the fairness of this approach—the Chief Justice oversees the highest court in our land and was nominated by a Republican President. And, given his authority to rule on questions of privilege, they should not fear a drawn-out process. I urge my colleagues to seek out the truth and the facts and to vote in support of my motion. Anything else constitutes an effort to hide the truth." He's right, it's perfectly fair. So it's another test of whether there are just four Republicans left who think this process should be fair.

Here's the text of the motion: "I move that for this trial the presiding officer shall issue subpoenas of any witness or any document that a Senator or a party moves to subpoena if the presiding officer deems them likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article of impeachment, and, consistent with his authority to rule on all questions of evidence, shall rule on any assertion of privilege."