dailysignal--2020-02-06--8 Moments on Senate Floor Before the Vote to Acquit Trump

The Senate voted Wednesday afternoon to acquit President Donald Trump on both articles of impeachment following 11 days of arguments by House prosecutors and the president ’ s defense team .
After speeches by senators , Chief Justice John Roberts , who presided over the trial , gaveled in the court of impeachment to render verdicts in one of the least suspenseful of political acts .
The Senate voted 52-48 to find Trump not guilty on the charge of abuse of power , with only one Republican , Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah , joining all Democrats and two Independents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Senate then voted 53-47 to find Trump not guilty of obstruction of Congress , with Romney joining the rest of voted the Republicans .
Trump announced on Twitter that he would speak Thursday about his acquittal .
The president also sent out a comical tweet : White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham issued a press release saying that “ all Democrats , and one failed Republican presidential candidate , voted for the manufactured impeachment articles.
” In a press conference afterward , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Romney ’ s vote to convict Trump of abuse of power .
But McConnell said he looks forward to working on other issues with Romney and would not support expelling him from the Senate ’ s Republican conference .
The Senate Democrats had no defections , as happened in the House when three Democrats voted against at least one article of impeachment and other Democrat voted present .
Sen. Joe Manchin , D-W.V.
, a centrist Democrat who many believed was a swing vote , stuck with his party despite proposing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif. , first indicated she might vote to acquit Trump , but later clarified her remarks after an uproar .
She voted with her party Wednesday .
In a somewhat dubious distinction , Trump becomes the first impeached president to be acquitted by a clear majority vote in a Senate trial on each article of impeachment .
In 1868 , the Senate voted 35-19 to convict President Andrew Johnson , which was one vote shy of the two-thirds supermajority required by the Constitution to remove him from office for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 1999 , in the case of President Bill Clinton , a majority of 55 senators voted to find him not guilty of perjury , but only half , or 50 , voted to find Clinton not guilty of obstruction of justice .
Throughout the day Wednesday , 41 Republicans and 37 Democrats spoke on the floor , according to a tally by C-SPAN .
Here are highlights from the day .
Sen. Roy Blunt , R-Mo.
, said it was wrong for the House to send the Senate a case for removing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it needed more work , it should have had more work , ” Blunt said , of House Democrats ’ demands for new witnesses in the trial .
Blunt cited the two articles of impeachment , abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
“ In their haste to put this case together , the House sent the Senate the two weakest articles of impeachment possible , ” Blunt said .
“ Presidents since Washington have been accused by some members of Congress of abuse of power .
Presidents since Washington have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failure to cooperate with the Congress.
” The Missouri Republican also said the article alleging obstruction of Congress would take a constitutional issue of separation of power away from the judiciary and turn the legislative branch into the judiciary .
“ The House managers argued against their own case , ” Blunt said .
“ They repeatedly contended that they made their case completely , that they made their case totally , [ that ] they made their case incontrovertibly .
But they wanted us to call witnesses that they had chosen not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment arose out of Trump ’ s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy .
House Democrats voted Dec. 18 , without a single Republican vote , to impeach Trump on the two articles .
According to a White House transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy call , released by the president , the two leaders briefly talked about Trump ’ s interest in Ukraine ’ s investigating former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s dealings there and the role of his son , Hunter Biden , on the board of Ukrainian energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look into whether Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election .
Zelenskyy apparently did not know at the time that Trump had put a hold on $ 391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine to help it counter Russia ’ s invasion .
Trump released the funds in September after a whistleblower complaint questioned the July 25 call .
House Democrats alleged that Trump withheld the military aid to pressure Zelenskyy into initiating politically motivated investigations .
2 .
‘ I Take an Oath Before God as Enormously Consequential ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney ’ s vote to convict Trump of abuse of power , though the Republican Party ’ s 2012 presidential nominee had telegraphed the move .
“ As a senator juror , I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice , ” Romney said on the Senate floor .
“ I am profoundly religious .
My faith is at the heart of who I am .
I take an oath before God as enormously consequential .
I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president , the leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most difficult decision I have ever faced .
I was not wrong.
” Romney said that former Vice President Joe Biden and his son , Hunter Biden , had a conflict of interest in their dealings in Ukraine , but that that was not a crime .
The Utah Republican , his voice cracking at times , said he didn ’ t believe that a high crime and misdemeanor , as specified in the Constitution for impeachment , required a statutory crime .
“ There is no question in my mind that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president would have never done what he did , ” Romney said .
“ The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor .
Yes , he did.
” During the Republican presidential primaries in 2016 , Romney was a leader of the party ’ s “ Never Trump ” forces .
After Trump won the nomination for president , Romney did not endorse him , although Trump endorsed Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former governor of Massachusetts , also said : Sen. Doug Jones , D-Ala. , was considered a swing vote , being from a state that heavily supported Trump in the 2016 election .
“ The evidence clearly proves the president used the weight of the office and the weight of the United States government to coerce a foriegn government to interfere in our election for his personal , political benefit , ” Jones , a former U.S. attorney , said .
“ His actions were more than simply inappropriate .
They were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the only check on such presidential wrongdoing.
” Jones said he was more conflicted regarding the article of impeachment alleging obstruction of Congress and researched the matter .
“ I believe that the president deliberately and unconstitutionally obstructed Congress by refusing to cooperate with the investigation in any way , ” Jones said .
“ While I am sensitive to protecting privileges and immunities afforded to the president and his advisers , I believe it is critical to our constitutional structure that we also protect the authority of Congress of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send a message that Trump is not accountable , and have a chilling effect on future whistleblowers : Jones noted that he is assigned to the desk once used by a Massachusetts senator and later president , John F. Kennedy , whose Pulitzer Prize-winning book was titled “ Profiles in Courage.
” “ There will be so many who will simply look at what I ’ m doing today and say that it is a profile in courage .
It is not , ” Jones said .
“ It is simply a matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a courageous act .
It is simply following your oath.
” Utah ’ s other senator , Republican Mike Lee , a constitutional scholar , highlighted how the House impeachment managers , or prosecutors , repeatedly accused Trump of going against the consensus of an “ interagency process ” on Ukraine policy determined by civil servants in federal agencies .
The House Intelligence Committee ’ s impeachment report used the term “ interagency ” almost 30 times .
“ What ’ s the response from the House managers ?
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Lee , a former federal prosecutor .
“ As if [ policy must be determined by ] people who the American people don ’ t know or have reason to know , because those people don ’ t stand accountable to the people , they are not elected by the people , they are not really accountable to anyone who is in turn elected by the people.
” Lee said there is nothing wrong with a president evaluating foreign aid to a country such as Ukraine with a legacy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s new leader would be a legitimate reformer : Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas , noted the fact that House Democrats did not cite specific crimes , and said that as a result they could not meet the constitutional standard to oust a president .
“ Impeachment of the president of the United States is simply the gravest undertaking we can pursue in this country , ” Cornyn said on the Senate floor .
“ It is the nuclear option in our Constitution .
It ’ s a choice of last resort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so serious that Congress must act rather than leave the choice to the voters in the election.
” Cornyn called on Democrats to look beyond Trump and consider what it would mean to “ weaponize ” impeachment : Cornyn , a former Texas attorney general , said the House impeachment managers failed to prove abuse of power .
“ The Constitution talks about treason , bribery , or other high crimes and misdemeanors , clearly a criminal standard , and thus [ House Democrats ] failed to meet their burden of proof , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , D-Ohio , criticized McConnell for coordinating the trial with the White House and for not agreeing to call new witnesses for the Senate trial .
Brown invoked a recent comment by Bill Moyers , a former White House press secretary for President Lyndon Johnson and later a liberal political commentator and talk show host .
“ What we ’ ve just seen is the dictator of the Senate manipulating the impeachment process to save the demagogue in the White House whose political party has become the gravedigger of democracy , ” Brown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ If we have a president who can turn the entire executive branch into his own political campaign operation , God help us.
” He also brought up an argument in the trial by Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz that Trump considered his reelection to be in the national interest .
“ Mr .
Dershowitz ’ s words will live forever in the historical record , ” Brown said .
“ If they are allowed to stand aside a not guilty verdict , make no mistake , they will be used as precedent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that Democrats and other critics distorted his words .
Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , argued before the votes on the two articles of impeachment that the inevitable verdict would send the message that the justice system is broken .
“ When the American people see the president acting as if he is above the law , it understandably leaves them feeling untrustful of our system of justice , distrustful of our system of democracy .
When the United States Senate refuses to hold him accountable , it reinforces that loss of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a former California attorney general , said .
Harris implored her colleagues to vote for Trump ’ s removal .
“ In our long struggle for justice , I will do my part by voting to convict this lawless president and remove him from office , and I urge my colleagues to join me on the right side of history , ” she said .
Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , scolded advocates of impeaching Trump and warned them of consequences .
Graham first told the public : “ You ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , not a bunch of politicians driven by sour grapes.
” Graham , chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a 2016 primary opponent to Trump who didn ’ t endorse him after his nomination , revealed that he also voted for someone else that November .
“ I didn ’ t vote for President Trump .
I voted for somebody I wouldn ’ t know if they walked in the door , but I accepted the fact that he won , ” he said .
Graham , now considered to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies , went on to note that he supported the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign and the Trump campaign ’ s possible cooperation with that .
Graham also co-sponsored legislation to prevent Trump from firing Mueller .
“ I supported the Mueller investigation .
… Two years , $ 32 million , FBI agents , subpoenas , you name it , the verdict is in , ” Graham said .
“ What did we find [ against Trump ] ?
Nothing .
I thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s never enough when it comes to Trump.
” Mueller determined that he found no evidence of a conspiracy between Trump or his campaign with the Russian government .
The special counsel made no determination on whether Trump obstructed justice by impeding the investigation .
“ I trusted Bob Mueller , and when he rendered his verdict , it broke your heart , and you can ’ t let it go , ” Graham said , meaning that he trusted Mueller to do an honest investigation while Democrats wanted him to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina Republican called the impeachment process “ the low point in the Senate for me.
” “ What you have done is unleash the partisan forces from hell , ” Graham said of House Democrats ’ impeachment inquiry , adding : Graham cited demands from some Democrat lawmakers before Trump ’ s inauguration , and some even before his election , for his impeachment .
“ In the process of impeaching this president , you ’ ve made it almost impossible for future presidents to do their job , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took due process as we know it in America and threw it in the garbage can .
… They wanted to do it in 78 days why ?
They wanted to do it before the election.
” Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes : 8 Highlights of Closing Arguments Before the Final Impeachment Vote 4 Big Moments Before the Senate ’ s Vote Against New Impeachment Witnesses 7 Questions and Answers From Day 9 of Trump Impeachment Trial ‘ Danger , Danger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Final Day of Defense Arguments in Impeachment Trial Under Bolton Shadow , 6 Big Moments From Day 6 of Trump Impeachment Trial 5 Big Points by Trump ’ s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial 7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial What to Know About Democrats ’ 7 Impeachment Managers

The Senate voted Wednesday afternoon to acquit President Donald Trump on both articles of impeachment following 11 days of arguments by House prosecutors and the president’s defense team.
After speeches by senators, Chief Justice John Roberts, who presided over the trial, gaveled in the court of impeachment to render verdicts in one of the least suspenseful of political acts.
The Senate voted 52-48 to find Trump not guilty on the charge of abuse of power, with only one Republican, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, joining all Democrats and two independents in a guilty verdict.
The Senate then voted 53-47 to find Trump not guilty of obstruction of Congress, with Romney joining the rest of the Republicans in acquitting the president.
The proceedings ended at 4:40 p.m.
Trump announced on Twitter that he would speak Thursday about his acquittal.
I will be making a public statement tomorrow at 12:00pm from the @WhiteHouse to discuss our Country’s VICTORY on the Impeachment Hoax! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2020
The president also sent out a comical tweet:
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham issued a press release saying that “all Democrats, and one failed Republican presidential candidate, voted for the manufactured impeachment articles.”
Grisham said:
In what has now become a consistent tradition for Democrats, this was yet another witch-hunt that deprived the President of his due process rights and was based on a series of lies. … Throughout this wholly corrupt process, President Trump successfully advanced the interests of the United States and remained focused on the issues that matter to Americans.
In a press conference afterward, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he was “surprised and disappointed” by Romney’s vote to convict Trump of abuse of power. But McConnell said he looks forward to working on other issues with Romney and would not support expelling him from the Senate’s Republican conference.
The Senate Democrats had no defections, as happened in the House when three Democrats voted against at least one article of impeachment and another Democrat voted present.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a centrist Democrat who many believed was a swing vote, stuck with his party despite proposing a bipartisan censure earlier in the week.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., first indicated she might vote to acquit Trump, but later clarified her remarks after an uproar. She voted with her party Wednesday.
In a somewhat dubious distinction, Trump becomes the first impeached president to be acquitted by a clear majority vote in a Senate trial on each article of impeachment.
In 1868, the Senate voted 35-19 to convict President Andrew Johnson, which was one vote shy of the two-thirds supermajority required by the Constitution to remove him from office for violating the Tenure of Office Act.
In 1999, in the case of President Bill Clinton, a majority of 55 senators voted to find him not guilty of perjury, but only half, or 50, voted to find Clinton not guilty of obstruction of justice.
Throughout the day Wednesday, 41 Republicans and 37 Democrats spoke on the floor, according to a tally by C-SPAN.
Here are highlights from the day.
1. ‘Two Weakest Articles of Impeachment Possible’
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said it was wrong for the House to send the Senate a case for removing Trump that was incomplete.
“If it needed more work, it should have had more work,” Blunt said of House Democrats’ demands for new witnesses in the trial.
Blunt cited the two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
“In their haste to put this case together, the House sent the Senate the two weakest articles of impeachment possible,” Blunt said. “Presidents since Washington have been accused by some members of Congress of abuse of power. Presidents since Washington have been accused by some members of Congress of failure to cooperate with the Congress.”
The Missouri Republican also said the article alleging obstruction of Congress would take a constitutional issue of separation of power away from the judiciary and turn the legislative branch into the judiciary.
“The House managers argued against their own case,” Blunt said. “They repeatedly contended that they made their case completely, that they made their case totally, [that] they made their case incontrovertibly. But they wanted us to call witnesses that they had chosen not to call.”
The two articles of impeachment arose out of Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
House Democrats voted Dec. 18, without a single Republican vote, to impeach Trump on the two articles.
According to a White House transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy call, released by the president, the two leaders briefly talked about Trump’s interest in Ukraine’s investigating former Vice President Joe Biden’s dealings there and the role of his son, Hunter Biden, on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma. Trump also asked Zelenskyy to look into whether Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.
Zelenskyy apparently did not know at the time that Trump had put a hold on $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine to help it counter Russia’s invasion.
Trump released the funds in September after a whistleblower complaint questioned the July 25 call. House Democrats alleged that Trump withheld the military aid to pressure Zelenskyy into initiating politically motivated investigations.
2. ‘I Take an Oath Before God as Enormously Consequential’
The biggest surprise of the day was Romney’s vote to convict Trump of abuse of power, though the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nominee had telegraphed the move.
“As a senator juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice,” Romney said on the Senate floor. “I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. 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.”
Romney said that former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, had a conflict of interest in their dealings in Ukraine, but that that was not a crime.
The Utah Republican, his voice cracking at times, said he didn’t believe that a high crime and misdemeanor, as specified in the Constitution for impeachment, required a statutory crime.
“There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would have never done what he did,” Romney said.
“The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did.”
During the Republican presidential primaries in 2016, Romney was a leader of the party’s “Never Trump” forces. After Trump won the nomination for president, Romney did not endorse him, although Trump endorsed Romney for president in 2012.
Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, also said:
The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press him to do so. The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would I fear expose my character to history’s rebuke and [the] censure of my own conscience.
3. Not a ‘Profile in Courage’
Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., was considered a swing vote, being from a state that heavily supported Trump in the 2016 election.
“The evidence clearly proves the president used the weight of the office and the weight of the United States government to coerce a foriegn government to interfere in our election for his personal, political benefit,” Jones, a former U.S. attorney, said. “His actions were more than simply inappropriate. They were an abuse of power. … Impeachment is the only check on such presidential wrongdoing.”
Jones said he was more conflicted regarding the article of impeachment alleging obstruction of Congress and researched the matter.
“I believe that the president deliberately and unconstitutionally obstructed Congress by refusing to cooperate with the investigation in any way,” Jones said. “While I am sensitive to protecting privileges and immunities afforded to the president and his advisers, I believe it is critical to our constitutional structure that we also protect the authority of Congress of the United States.”
Jones warned that acquittal could send a message that Trump is not accountable, and have a chilling effect on future whistleblowers:
That belief simply must not be permitted to stand. To do otherwise risks guaranteeing that no other future whistleblower or witness will ever come forward and no future president, Republican or Democrat, will be subject to congressional oversight as mandated by the Constitution.
Jones noted that he is assigned to the desk once used by a Massachusetts senator and later president, John F. Kennedy, whose Pulitzer Prize-winning book was titled “Profiles in Courage.”
“There will be so many who will simply look at what I’m doing today and say that it is a profile in courage. It is not,” Jones said. “It is simply a matter of right and wrong. Doing right is not a courageous act. It is simply following your oath.”
4. ‘Completely Foreign to Our Constitutional Structure’
Utah’s other senator, Republican Mike Lee, a constitutional scholar, highlighted how the House impeachment managers, or prosecutors, repeatedly accused Trump of going against the consensus of an “interagency process” on Ukraine policy determined by civil servants in federal agencies.
The House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report used the term “interagency” almost 30 times.
“What’s the response from the House managers? Well, it gets back to that interagency process,” said Lee, a former federal prosecutor. “As if [policy must be determined by] people who the American people don’t know or have reason to know, because those people don’t stand accountable to the people, they are not elected by the people, they are not really accountable to anyone who is in turn elected by the people.”
Lee continued:
The fact that these people involved in the interagency process might disagree with a foreign policy decision made by the president of the United States, or the fact that this president of the United States might take a different approach than his predecessor or predecessors, does not make this president’s decisions criminal. It certainly doesn’t make them impeachable. It doesn’t even make them wrong. … It is elevating to a status completely foreign to our constitutional structure an entity that the Constitution does not name. It elevates a policy dispute to a question of high crimes and misdemeanors. Those two are not the same thing.
Lee said there is nothing wrong with a president evaluating foreign aid to a country such as Ukraine with a legacy of corruption, and determining whether that country’s new leader would be a legitimate reformer:
In the eyes of many—I believe most Americans—they want a president to be careful about how a president of the United States spends money. They want the United States to stop and reconsider from time to time the fact that we spend a lot of money throughout the world in countries that are not the United States. We want the president of the United States to be able to exercise a little bit of discretion in pushing pause before he knows he can trust a newly elected government in a country in question.
5. ‘Nuclear Option of the Constitution’
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, noted the fact that House Democrats did not cite specific crimes, and said that as a result they could not meet the constitutional standard to oust a president.
“Impeachment of the president of the United States is simply the gravest undertaking we can pursue in this country,” Cornyn said on the Senate floor. “It is the nuclear option in our Constitution. It’s a choice of last resort when a president has committed a crime so serious that Congress must act rather than leave the choice to the voters in the election.”
Cornyn called on Democrats to look beyond Trump and consider what it would mean to “weaponize” impeachment:
This politically motivated impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. This is a very important point. This is not about President Trump, this is about the office of the presidency and what precedent a conviction and removal would set for our future. If successful, this would give a green light to future congresses to weaponize impeachment to defeat a political opponent for any action, even a failure to kowtow to Congress’ wishes.
Cornyn, a former Texas attorney general, said the House impeachment managers failed to prove abuse of power.
“The Constitution talks about treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, clearly a criminal standard, and thus [House Democrats] failed to meet their burden of proof,” he said.
6. ‘Future Aspiring Autocrats’
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, criticized McConnell for coordinating the trial with the White House and for not agreeing to call new witnesses for the Senate trial.
Brown invoked a recent comment by Bill Moyers, a former White House press secretary for President Lyndon Johnson and later a liberal political commentator and talk show host.
“What we’ve just seen is the dictator of the Senate manipulating the impeachment process to save the demagogue in the White House whose political party has become the gravedigger of democracy,” Brown said, quoting Moyers.
Brown added: “If we have a president who can turn the entire executive branch into his own political campaign operation, God help us.”
He also brought up an argument in the trial by Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz that Trump considered his reelection to be in the national interest.
“Mr. Dershowitz’s words will live forever in the historical record,” Brown said. “If they are allowed to stand aside a not guilty verdict, make no mistake, they will be used as precedent by future aspiring autocrats.”
Dershowitz has said that Democrats and other critics distorted his words.
7. ‘Fight Against Tyranny’
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., argued before the votes on the two articles of impeachment that the inevitable verdict would send the message that the justice system is broken.
“When the American people see the president acting as if he is above the law, it understandably leaves them feeling untrustful of our system of justice, distrustful of our system of democracy. When the United States Senate refuses to hold him accountable, it reinforces that loss of trust in our system,” Harris, a former California attorney general, said.
She added:
The impeachment of Donald Trump has been one of those earnest struggles for liberty. This fight, like so many before it, has been a fight against tyranny. This struggle has not been an easy one. It has left too many people across our nation feeling cynical. For too many people, this trial confirms what they have always known—that the real power in this country lies not with them, but with just a few people who advance their own interest at the expense of others’ needs.
Harris implored her colleagues to vote for Trump’s removal.
“In our long struggle for justice, I will do my part by voting to convict this lawless president and remove him from office, and I urge my colleagues to join me on the right side of history,” she said.
8. ‘Politicians Driven by Sour Grapes’
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., scolded advocates of impeaching Trump and warned them of consequences.
Graham first told the public: “You’re going to get to pick the next president, not a bunch of politicians driven by sour grapes.”
Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a 2016 primary opponent to Trump who didn’t endorse him after his nomination, revealed that he also voted for someone else that November.
“I didn’t vote for President Trump. I voted for somebody I wouldn’t know if they walked in the door, but I accepted the fact that he won,” he said.
Graham, now considered to be one of the president’s stronger allies, went on to note that he supported the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign and the Trump campaign’s possible cooperation with that. Graham also co-sponsored legislation to prevent Trump from firing Mueller.
“I supported the Mueller investigation. … Two years, $32 million, FBI agents, subpoenas, you name it, the verdict is in,” Graham said. “What did we find [against Trump]? Nothing. I thought that would be it. But it’s never enough when it comes to Trump.”
Mueller determined that he found no evidence of a conspiracy between Trump or his campaign with the Russian government. The special counsel made no determination on whether Trump obstructed justice by impeding the investigation.
“I trusted Bob Mueller, and when he rendered his verdict, it broke your heart, and you can’t let it go,” Graham said, meaning that he trusted Mueller to do an honest investigation while Democrats wanted him to find that Trump did something wrong.
The South Carolina Republican called the impeachment process “the low point in the Senate for me.”
“What you have done is unleash the partisan forces from hell,” Graham said of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, adding:
They have impeached the president in 78 days. You cannot get a parking ticket, if you contested it, in 78 days. They gave out souvenir pens when it was over. If you can’t see through that, your hatred of Donald Trump has blinded you to the obvious.
Graham cited demands from some Democrat lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, and some even before his election, for his impeachment.
“In the process of impeaching this president, you’ve made it almost impossible for future presidents to do their job,” he said. “In 78 days, you took due process as we know it in America and threw it in the garbage can. … They wanted to do it in 78 days. Why? They wanted to do it before the election.”
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
***
Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes:
8 Highlights of Closing Arguments Before the Final Impeachment Vote
4 Big Moments Before the Senate’s Vote Against New Impeachment Witnesses
7 Questions and Answers From Day 9 of Trump Impeachment Trial
6 Scenes From Day 8 of Trump Impeachment Trial
‘Danger, Danger, Danger’: 4 Highlights From Final Day of Defense Arguments in Impeachment Trial
Under Bolton Shadow, 6 Big Moments From Day 6 of Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Big Points by Trump’s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial
7 Big Moments in Democrats’ Final Arguments to Remove Trump
7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Flash Points From Impeachment Trial’s Opening Arguments
What to Know About Democrats’ 7 Impeachment Managers


dailysignal--2020-02-05--Trump’s State of the Union Address Affirmed Americanism As Nation’s Guiding Ethos

Patriotism was one of the most important themes of President Donald Trump ’ s third State of the Union address on Tuesday night .
It was a night of high emotion and more than a few theatrics that began with Trump refusing to shake House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s hand and ending with Pelosi tearing up a copy of the speech .
All this took place in the shadow of a highly charged impeachment trial that finally came to a close with an acquittal a day later .
Beyond Trump ’ s specific descriptions about the state of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a variety of other issues relating directly to his policies , he connected modern America to shared and celebrated triumphs from our nation ’ s past .
Using that patriotic theme—which Trump has interspersed in all of his major speeches , from his inaugural address to his latest State of the Union address—has been one of the undeniable strengths of his presidency .
It ’ s a quality that was once shared by presidents across the political spectrum , but in the age of social-justice warriors , statue-smashing , anthem-kneeling , and cancel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions from the legacy media and Hollywood to academia—Trump ’ s brand of unapologetic patriotism stands out .
It was particularly pronounced at the end of Trump ’ s speech , in which he said that Americans have a “ glorious and magnificent inheritance , ” after naming and praising a long list of American heroes from throughout the country ’ s history .
He then hearkened Americans to embrace their pioneer , frontier heritage as we as a nation again push boundaries and reach for greater accomplishments , as we always have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet made .
The American Age , the American epic , the American adventure has only just begun , ” Trump said .
“ Our spirit is still young , the sun is still rising , God ’ s grace is still shining , and , my fellow Americans , the best is yet to come.
” It ’ s hard to understate the importance of that message .
As I wrote in my book , “ The War on History : The Conspiracy to Rewrite America ’ s Past , ” there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and diminish America ’ s past as a means to replace traditional American ideals and principles with radical ones .
This effort is on full display with the “ 1619 Project ” of the New York Times Magazine , which creates a distorted and often inaccurate picture of American history , a history that at its core the magazine says is rooted in slavery and racism , not liberty .
At the heart of that way of thinking , which is now embedded deeply in American cultural institutions , is that Americans should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their country ’ s accomplishments and that the bad things about our past negate the good .
That in part is why so many of those institutions are now being looked upon with skepticism , why Americans are in a populist mood , and why Trump ’ s message resonates with so many people .
Trump wisely chose to highlight both the heroes of our history—like Abraham Lincoln , Frederick Douglass , and the Wright Brothers–as well as the ones still with us , such as 100-year-old Charles McGee , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he promoted to brigadier general .
The message was not simply that we must celebrate our past .
Instead , it was about keeping Americans rooted in the best aspects of their past , while focusing their eyes squarely on the horizon .
That is a quintessentially American outlook .
Often , it ’ s the very belief that our nation has a special mission in this world—that we are the unique pathfinders , trailblazing as no one else has—that has become a self-fulfilling prophecy .
Though Americans , like any other people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States was not created to be a nation like any other .
We may not be perfect , but we are committed to a great cause , and it took many heroes—both remembered and forgotten—to ensure that that legacy would endure .
We look to that brighter future not because we are ashamed of our past , but because we are proud of what our country stands for and would like nothing more than to see it have a greater and even more triumphant future .
Today , as new and potent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the world , it is essential that Americans come to understand and deepen their appreciation of our history , reject the noxious identity politics that threaten to shatter the concept of e pluribus unum , and embrace an inclusive Americanism that can unite the country in the face of its challenges .
Trump ’ s State of the Union address affirmed that ethos .

Patriotism was one of the most important themes of President Donald Trump’s third State of the Union address on Tuesday night.
It was a night of high emotion and more than a few theatrics that began with Trump refusing to shake House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand and ending with Pelosi tearing up a copy of the speech. All this took place in the shadow of a highly charged impeachment trial that finally came to a close with an acquittal a day later.
Beyond Trump’s specific descriptions about the state of the economy, American health care, and a variety of other issues relating directly to his policies, he connected modern America to shared and celebrated triumphs from our nation’s past.
Using that patriotic theme—which Trump has interspersed in all of his major speeches, from his inaugural address to his latest State of the Union address—has been one of the undeniable strengths of his presidency.
It’s a quality that was once shared by presidents across the political spectrum, but in the age of social justice warriors, statue-smashing, anthem-kneeling, and cancel culture—aided and abetted by an array of institutions from the legacy media and Hollywood to academia—Trump’s brand of unapologetic patriotism stands out.
It was particularly pronounced at the end of Trump’s speech, in which he said that Americans have a “glorious and magnificent inheritance,” after naming and praising a long list of American heroes from throughout the country’s history.
He then hearkened Americans to embrace their pioneer, frontier heritage as we as a nation again push boundaries and reach for greater accomplishments, as we always have.
“Our grandest journeys are not yet made. The American Age, the American epic, the American adventure has only just begun,” Trump said. “Our spirit is still young, the sun is still rising, God’s grace is still shining, and, my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come.”
It’s hard to understate the importance of that message.
As I wrote in my book “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past,” there has been a concerted effort to uproot and diminish America’s past as a means to replace traditional American ideals and principles with radical ones.
This effort is on full display with the 1619 Project of The New York Times Magazine, which creates a distorted and often inaccurate picture of American history, a history that at its core the magazine says is rooted in slavery and racism, not liberty.
At the heart of that way of thinking, which is now embedded deeply in American cultural institutions, is that Americans should feel shame, rather than pride, in their country’s accomplishments and that the bad things about our past negate the good.
That in part is why so many of those institutions are now being looked upon with skepticism, why Americans are in a populist mood, and why Trump’s message resonates with so many people.
Trump wisely chose to highlight both the heroes of our history—like Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and the Wright brothers—as well as the ones still with us, such as 100-year-old Charles McGee, one of the few surviving Tuskegee Airmen, who he promoted to brigadier general.
The message was not simply that we must celebrate our past. Instead, it was about keeping Americans rooted in the best aspects of their past, while focusing their eyes squarely on the horizon.
That is a quintessentially American outlook. Often, it’s the very belief that our nation has a special mission in this world—that we are the unique pathfinders, trailblazing as no one else has—that has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Though Americans, like any other people, are flawed and fallen, the United States was not created to be a nation like any other. We may not be perfect, but we are committed to a great cause, and it took many heroes—both remembered and forgotten—to ensure that that legacy would endure.
We look to that brighter future not because we are ashamed of our past, but because we are proud of what our country stands for and would like nothing more than to see it have a greater and even more triumphant future.
Today, as new and potent threats to our way of life emerge in the world, it is essential that Americans come to understand and deepen their appreciation of our history, reject the noxious identity politics that threaten to shatter the concept of e pluribus unum, and embrace an inclusive Americanism that can unite the country in the face of its challenges.
Trump’s State of the Union address affirmed that ethos.


dailysignal--2020-02-05--‘Ripped Our Hearts Out’: SOTU Guest Whose Brother Was Murdered Reacts to Pelosi Ripping Up Speech

A guest at the State of the Union address whose brother was killed by an illegal alien said it was heartbreaking to watch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rip up President Donald Trump ’ s speech .
Appearing on “ Fox and Friends ” Wednesday morning , Jody Jones , whose brother was shot and killed by an illegal alien at a California gas station in 2018 , recounted how he felt when Pelosi chose to rip up Trump ’ s speech at the end of the address , calling it “ probably the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ripped our hearts out .
All the guests .
We couldn ’ t believe it , ” Jones said .
“ I don ’ t care how you feel about somebody .
That was probably the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen in my life .
Because , when she did that , it just tore us up .
We couldn ’ t believe it , ” he continued .
It wasn ’ t lost on the Fox News hosts or Jones that his brother ’ s name , Rocky Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invited Jody Jones to be one of his special guests at Tuesday night ’ s State of the Union address in Congress .
Jones ’ brother , Rocky , was shot and killed at a California gas station in 2018 by an illegal alien , and his presence Tuesday night was used to highlight the deadly consequences of sanctuary city policies .
The illegal alien who was held responsible for killing Rocky had been arrested for a DUI by local California authorities just days before the shooting .
Immigration and Customs Enforcement had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but because of sanctuary policy laws in the state , the detainer was ignored .
Jones asked that the legislation responsible for his brother ’ s death , SB 54 , be abolished , and called on Pelosi to be more respectful .
“ First of all , let ’ s do away with the SB 54 .
I don ’ t care how you feel about somebody .
Think of other people and the others involved , please .
Because what you did was very disrespectful , and it really ripped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During his address , Trump called on lawmakers to support legislation introduced by Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis , the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act , that would allow people like Jones to sue sanctuary cities if a loved one is killed or hurt by such “ deadly ” policies .
As for Jones , he said this tragedy has affected his family tremendously , but it has not torn them apart .
“ We are a pretty tight-knit family , ” he said .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the president inviting us , what an honor that was just to honor our brother and he sure did that.
” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , email [ email protected ]

A guest at the State of the Union address whose brother was killed by an illegal alien said it was heartbreaking to watch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rip up President Donald Trump’s speech.
Appearing on “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning, Jody Jones, whose brother was shot and killed by an illegal alien at a California gas station in 2018, recounted how he felt when Pelosi chose to rip up Trump’s speech at the end of the address, calling it “probably the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen in my life.”
“Felt like she ripped our hearts out. All the guests. We couldn’t believe it,” Jones said.
“I don’t care how you feel about somebody. That was probably the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen in my life. Because, when she did that, it just tore us up. We couldn’t believe it,” he continued.
It wasn’t lost on the Fox News hosts or Jones that his brother’s name, Rocky Jones, was on that paper.
Trump invited Jody Jones to be one of his special guests at Tuesday night’s State of the Union address in Congress. Jones’ brother, Rocky, was shot and killed at a California gas station in 2018 by an illegal alien, and his presence Tuesday night was used to highlight the deadly consequences of sanctuary city policies.
The illegal alien who was held responsible for killing Rocky had been arrested for a DUI by local California authorities just days before the shooting. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed an immigration detainer on the individual, but because of sanctuary policy laws in the state, the detainer was ignored.
Jones asked that the legislation responsible for his brother’s death, SB 54, be abolished, and called on Pelosi to be more respectful.
“First of all, let’s do away with the SB 54. I don’t care how you feel about somebody. Think of other people and the others involved, please. Because what you did was very disrespectful, and it really ripped our hearts out,” Jones said.
During his address, Trump called on lawmakers to support legislation introduced by Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act, that would allow people like Jones to sue sanctuary cities if a loved one is killed or hurt by such “deadly” policies.
As for Jones, he said this tragedy has affected his family tremendously, but it has not torn them apart.
“We are a pretty tight-knit family,” he said. “It’s really actually made us closer, and with the president inviting us, what an honor that was just to honor our brother and he sure did that.”
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-02-05--Trump’s State of the Union Address Affirms Americanism as Nation’s Guiding Ethos

Patriotism was one of the most important themes of President Donald Trump ’ s third State of the Union address on Tuesday night .
It was a night of high emotion and more than a few theatrics that began with Trump refusing to shake House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s hand and ending with Pelosi tearing up a copy of the speech .
All this took place in the shadow of a highly charged impeachment trial that finally came to a close with an acquittal a day later .
Beyond Trump ’ s specific descriptions about the state of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a variety of other issues relating directly to his policies , he connected modern America to shared and celebrated triumphs from our nation ’ s past .
Using that patriotic theme—which Trump has interspersed in all of his major speeches , from his inaugural address to his latest State of the Union address—has been one of the undeniable strengths of his presidency .
It ’ s a quality that was once shared by presidents across the political spectrum , but in the age of social justice warriors , statue-smashing , anthem-kneeling , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of institutions from the legacy media and Hollywood to academia—Trump ’ s brand of unapologetic patriotism stands out .
It was particularly pronounced at the end of Trump ’ s speech , in which he said that Americans have a “ glorious and magnificent inheritance , ” after naming and praising a long list of American heroes from throughout the country ’ s history .
He then hearkened Americans to embrace their pioneer , frontier heritage as we as a nation again push boundaries and reach for greater accomplishments , as we always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet made .
The American Age , the American epic , the American adventure has only just begun , ” Trump said .
“ Our spirit is still young , the sun is still rising , God ’ s grace is still shining , and , my fellow Americans , the best is yet to come.
” It ’ s hard to understate the importance of that message .
As I wrote in my book “ The War on History : The Conspiracy to Rewrite America ’ s Past , ” there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and diminish America ’ s past as a means to replace traditional American ideals and principles with radical ones .
This effort is on full display with the 1619 Project of The New York Times Magazine , which creates a distorted and often inaccurate picture of American history , a history that at its core the magazine says is rooted in slavery and racism , not liberty .
At the heart of that way of thinking , which is now embedded deeply in American cultural institutions , is that Americans should feel shame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s accomplishments and that the bad things about our past negate the good .
That in part is why so many of those institutions are now being looked upon with skepticism , why Americans are in a populist mood , and why Trump ’ s message resonates with so many people .
Trump wisely chose to highlight both the heroes of our history—like Abraham Lincoln , Frederick Douglass , and the Wright brothers—as well as the ones still with us , such as 100-year-old Charles McGee , one of the few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to brigadier general .
The message was not simply that we must celebrate our past .
Instead , it was about keeping Americans rooted in the best aspects of their past , while focusing their eyes squarely on the horizon .
That is a quintessentially American outlook .
Often , it ’ s the very belief that our nation has a special mission in this world—that we are the unique pathfinders , trailblazing as no one else has—that has become a self-fulfilling prophecy .
Though Americans , like any other people , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not created to be a nation like any other .
We may not be perfect , but we are committed to a great cause , and it took many heroes—both remembered and forgotten—to ensure that that legacy would endure .
We look to that brighter future not because we are ashamed of our past , but because we are proud of what our country stands for and would like nothing more than to see it have a greater and even more triumphant future .
Today , as new and potent threats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , it is essential that Americans come to understand and deepen their appreciation of our history , reject the noxious identity politics that threaten to shatter the concept of e pluribus unum , and embrace an inclusive Americanism that can unite the country in the face of its challenges .
Trump ’ s State of the Union address affirmed that ethos .


dailysignal--2020-02-06--His Foes ‘Vicious’ and ‘Genius’ in Impeachment, Trump Tells Supporters

President Donald Trump , throwing what he called a “ celebration ” Thursday at the White House , said the nation could have accomplished more by now if not for the time put into his impeachment and defense .
“ Think what we could have done if the same energy was put into infrastructure , prescription drug prices .
Think of what we could have done , and I ’ m now talking to both sides , ” Trump told a friendly audience packed into the East Room of the White House .
The president spent much of the occasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thanking individual Senate and House Republicans who helped to defend him .
Lawmakers , Cabinet members , staffers , and other supporters joined the president one day after the Senate voted to acquit him on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress that grew out of his July 25 phone conversation with Ukraine ’ s president .
After the partisan ordeal , Trump did have one nice thing to say about Democrats : Trump did not use the event to address the nation , as many had expected , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House audience .
Trump praised Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , and other specific Republican lawmakers who stood by him , often telling personal anecdotes .
And the president contested some who objected to his raising apparent issue of conflicts of interest in Ukraine for former Vice President Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden in his call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy .
“ You know , I had some that said , ‘ Oh , I wish he didn ’ t make the call.
’ That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s incorrect .
It ’ s totally incorrect , ” Trump said .
For the second time Thursday , the president referred to the lone Senate Republican vote against him cast by Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah , who was the party ’ s presidential nominee in 2012 .
This time , he eventually identified Romney by name .
“ Then you have some that used religion as a crutch .
They never used it before , ” Trump said .
“ But it ’ s a failed presidential candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fail so badly running for president.
” Romney , a Mormon , invoked God and his faith on the Senate floor Wednesday in explaining why he would vote to remove Trump from office for abuse of power .
Trump had harsh things to say about Democrats , primarily House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff , both California Democrats .
“ These people are vicious .
Adam Schiff is a vicious , horrible person .
Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person .
She wanted to impeach a long time ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he doesn ’ t believe Pelosi ’ s repeated claims that she prays for him .
“ She doesn ’ t pray for the president .
She may pray , but she prays for the opposite .
But I doubt she prays at all , ” Trump said , adding : Trump also had referred to Romney and Pelosi that morning at the National Prayer Breakfast , although not by name .
At the White House , Trump said Democrats ’ impeachment effort began with “ tremendous corruption , ” an opposition-research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as former Director James Comey whom he referred to as “ dirty cops.
” As he had at the prayer breakfast , Trump also held up a copy of The Washington Post with its big headline saying “ Trump acquitted .
”

President Donald Trump, throwing what he called a “celebration” Thursday at the White House, said the nation could have accomplished more by now if not for the time put into his impeachment and legal defense.
“Think what we could have done if the same energy was put into infrastructure, prescription drug prices. Think of what we could have done, and I’m now talking to both sides,” Trump told a friendly audience packed into the East Room of the White House.
The president spent much of the occasion, which went more than an hour, thanking individual Senate and House Republicans who helped to defend him.
Lawmakers, Cabinet members, staffers, and other supporters joined the president one day after the Senate voted to acquit him on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress that grew out of his July 25 phone conversation with Ukraine’s president.
After the partisan ordeal, Trump did have one nice thing to say about Democrats:
I will say it’s genius on the other side and even more so, because they took nothing and brought me to a final vote on impeachment. That’s an ugly word for me, that’s a very dark word. … But now we have that gorgeous word. I never thought a word would sound so good. It’s called total acquittal.
Trump did not use the event to address the nation, as many had expected, but instead expressed gratitude directly to his White House audience.
Trump praised Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and other specific Republican lawmakers who stood by him, often telling personal anecdotes.
And the president contested some who objected to his raising apparent issue of conflicts of interest in Ukraine for former Vice President Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden in his call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
“You know, I had some that said, ‘Oh, I wish he didn’t make the call.’ That’s OK if they need that. It’s incorrect. It’s totally incorrect,” Trump said.
For the second time Thursday, the president referred to the lone Senate Republican vote against him cast by Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, who was the party’s presidential nominee in 2012. This time, he eventually identified Romney by name.
“Then you have some that used religion as a crutch. They never used it before,” Trump said. “But it’s a failed presidential candidate, so things can happen when you fail so badly running for president.”
Romney, a Mormon, invoked God and his faith on the Senate floor Wednesday in explaining why he would vote to remove Trump from office for abuse of power.
Trump had harsh things to say about Democrats, primarily House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, both California Democrats.
“These people are vicious. Adam Schiff is a vicious, horrible person. Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person. She wanted to impeach a long time ago,” Trump said.
The president said he doesn’t believe Pelosi’s repeated claims that she prays for him.
“She doesn’t pray for the president. She may pray, but she prays for the opposite. But I doubt she prays at all,” Trump said, adding:
These are vicious people. But they do two things. They stick together—historically—like glue. That’s how they were able to impeach. … They stuck together and were as vicious as hell, and they’ll probably come back for more. But maybe not, because the Republican Party’s poll numbers have now gone up more than any time I think since 2004 and 2005. The Republican Party’s poll numbers and Donald Trump’s poll numbers are the highest I’ve ever had them. … It’s no way to get your poll numbers up. Because from my family’s standpoint, it has been very unfair for my family and it’s been very unfair to the country.
Trump also had referred to Romney and Pelosi that morning at the National Prayer Breakfast, although not by name.
At the White House, Trump said Democrats’ impeachment effort began with “tremendous corruption,” an opposition-research dossier on him, and FBI officials such as former Director James Comey whom he referred to as “dirty cops.”
As he had at the prayer breakfast, Trump also held up a copy of The Washington Post with its big headline saying “Trump acquitted.”


dailysignal--2020-02-06--‘Oprah Moment’: Ocasio-Cortez Accuses Rush Limbaugh of Faking Reaction to Medal

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused legendary radio host Rush Limbaugh of faking his reaction to President Donald Trump awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom during Tuesday night ’ s State of the Union address .
Limbaugh , who announced Monday that he has advanced-stage lung cancer , grew visibly emotional while receiving the award during Trump ’ s address .
Ocasio-Cortez accused him of faking it .
“ Rush Limbaugh is a virulent racist , ” she said in an Instagram video Tuesday night .
“ But even just on top of that , to do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Union and not even dignify it with its own ceremony as it has , there ’ s all sorts of norms that are being violated and not just for people ’ s humanity but also it truly just cheapens the value of it , ” she added .
“ Also , him pretending to be surprised was such a joke , ” she continued .
“ This has been news all day , there have been multiple reports from multiple outlets , saying that Rush limbaugh was going to receive the Medal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it and he had to pretend like this was some kind of Oprah moment , ” Ocasio-Cortez said .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , email [ email protected ]

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused legendary radio host Rush Limbaugh of faking his reaction to President Donald Trump awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom during Tuesday night’s State of the Union address.
Limbaugh, who announced Monday that he has advanced-stage lung cancer, grew visibly emotional while receiving the award during Trump’s address. Ocasio-Cortez accused him of faking it.
“Rush Limbaugh is a virulent racist,” she said in an Instagram video Tuesday night.
“But even just on top of that, to do it in the middle of the State of the Union and not even dignify it with its own ceremony as it has, there’s all sorts of norms that are being violated and not just for people’s humanity but also it truly just cheapens the value of it,” she added.
“Also, him pretending to be surprised was such a joke,” she continued.
“This has been news all day, there have been multiple reports from multiple outlets, saying that Rush limbaugh was going to receive the Medal of Freedom, and then Trump announced it and he had to pretend like this was some kind of Oprah moment,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez viciously *mocks* Rush Limbaugh, who has stage 4 lung cancer, calls his reaction to being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom “disingenuous”
Says that he, while having cancer, was a “joke,” needed an “Opera moment,” and was “nauseating” pic.twitter.com/VrsIj1Cmlj — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) February 5, 2020
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-02-07--How History Will Judge the Trump Impeachment

The Senate has voted against impeaching President Donald Trump , defeating two articles of impeachment by votes of 52-48 and 53-47 .
Trump joins two former presidents , Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton , in being impeached by the House of Representatives before being acquitted by the Senate .
The House failed to produce credible evidence that the president committed any “ high Crimes and Misdemeanors ” or engaged in any action that justified his impeachment by the House , let alone his conviction and removal from office by the Senate .
Despite Democrats ’ loss in the Senate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Reps. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , and Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , are no doubt basking in the admiration of their liberal allies for their actions , and they are hoping that their attempt to damage the president in the eyes of the public will be successful in the 2020 election .
However , history is often an unforgiving critic .
Historians in the future may judge them far more harshly for abusing the impeachment power in the Constitution .
That provision was not intended to allow 285 members of Congress—a simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a duly elected president for partisan reasons or over matters of style , no matter what his margin of victory in the last election .
Impeachment was to be used only in the direst of circumstances to remove a president clearly guilty of such serious , substantial misconduct that he posed a danger to the nation , and who was clearly unfit to continue in office until the next election when the public could make its own choice .
House Democrats did not come even close to meeting that standard .
It seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be viewed in the same manner as historians now view the “ radical Republicans ” who impeached Johnson , and who came within one vote of convicting and removing him from office .
Republicans personally hated Johnson , who became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln , and they virulently disagreed with Johnson ’ s decision to implement Lincoln ’ s conciliatory policies toward the Southern states .
As Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen outline in “ A Patriot ’ s History of the United States , ” in inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , radical Republicans claimed that Johnson was a “ wild-eyed dictator bent on overthrowing the government.
” Schiff was just as inflammatory when he called Trump a “ despot ” and the type of tyrant the Founders feared , while Nadler called Trump a “ dictator.
” Last time I checked the news , I didn ’ t see any stories about despotic activities by this president , such as a refusal to follow court orders or the abuse of federal law enforcement power to spy on and investigate political opponents .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did .
Liberals can certainly criticize the president for some of his policies that they may disagree with , but claiming he is a despot and a dictator is so over the top , so far from reality , that it helped destroy whatever credibility the House managers may have had at the start of the impeachment process .
Their wild exaggerations made it pretty clear this was a partisan , politically-driven impeachment .
Paul Johnson , in his book “ A History of the American People , ” also records that during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjected to “ torrents of personal abuse ” and other claims that Paul Johnson characterizes as “ nonsense.
” Seem familiar ?
It should , because Trump was also subjected to “ torrents of personal abuse ” by House managers during the impeachment trial .
Included among the impeachment articles adopted by the House in 1868 was a charge that Andrew Johnson had “ challenged the authority ” of Congress and had criticized Congress with “ intemperate , inflammatory , and scandalous harangues.
” Sounds an awful lot like the House ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ impeded ” the House and engaged in “ unprecedented , categorical , and indiscriminate defiance ” of Congress .
Furthermore , the Johnson impeachment charged that the president had unlawfully removed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton ( an ally of the radical Republicans ) and replaced him with Ulysses S. Grant .
Although it was not in the impeachment resolution , Schiff and his compatriots spent an enormous amount of time going after the president for firing the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , Marie Yovanovitch ( who was appointed by President Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an abuse of power .
This despite the fact that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president .
Once again , the parallels between the Trump and Johnson impeachments are eerie .
Historians almost universally condemn the Johnson impeachment as “ rash , reckless , and unwarranted , ” as Schweikart and Allen explain .
As Paul Johnson says , no “ constructive purpose was served by this vendetta , and the only political consequence was the discrediting of those who conducted it.
” Now that the process is over , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come to any conclusion other than that this impeachment , which Democrats started talking about doing as soon as Trump was inaugurated , was the result of personal and political “ vendettas ” against the president .
Given that some polls show that Trump is now more popular with the public than at any time during his presidency , Democrats may also end up suffering the “ political consequences ” of their abuse of the impeachment process and the “ discrediting of those who conducted it .
”

The Senate has voted against impeaching President Donald Trump, defeating two articles of impeachment by votes of 52-48 and 53-47. Trump joins two former presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, in being impeached by the House of Representatives before being acquitted by the Senate.
The House failed to produce credible evidence that the president committed any “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” or engaged in any action that justified his impeachment by the House, let alone his conviction and removal from office by the Senate.
Despite Democrats’ loss in the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., are no doubt basking in the admiration of their liberal allies for their actions, and they are hoping that their attempt to damage the president in the eyes of the public will be successful in the 2020 election.
However, history is often an unforgiving critic.
Historians in the future may judge them far more harshly for abusing the impeachment power in the Constitution. That provision was not intended to allow 285 members of Congress—a simple House majority and two-thirds of senators—to remove a duly elected president for partisan reasons or over matters of style, no matter what his margin of victory in the last election.
Impeachment was to be used only in the direst of circumstances to remove a president clearly guilty of such serious, substantial misconduct that he posed a danger to the nation, and who was clearly unfit to continue in office until the next election when the public could make its own choice.
House Democrats did not come even close to meeting that standard.
It seems highly likely that Pelosi and company will be viewed in the same manner as historians now view the “radical Republicans” who impeached Johnson, and who came within one vote of convicting and removing him from office.
Republicans personally hated Johnson, who became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and they virulently disagreed with Johnson’s decision to implement Lincoln’s conciliatory policies toward the Southern states.
As Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen outline in “A Patriot’s History of the United States,” in inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of that heard from some Democrats today, radical Republicans claimed that Johnson was a “wild-eyed dictator bent on overthrowing the government.”
Schiff was just as inflammatory when he called Trump a “despot” and the type of tyrant the Founders feared, while Nadler called Trump a “dictator.”
Last time I checked the news, I didn’t see any stories about despotic activities by this president, such as a refusal to follow court orders or the abuse of federal law enforcement power to spy on and investigate political opponents. The latter is something only the prior administration did.
Liberals can certainly criticize the president for some of his policies that they may disagree with, but claiming he is a despot and a dictator is so over the top, so far from reality, that it helped destroy whatever credibility the House managers may have had at the start of the impeachment process. Their wild exaggerations made it pretty clear this was a partisan, politically-driven impeachment.
Paul Johnson, in his book “A History of the American People,” also records that during the impeachment proceedings, Andrew Johnson was subjected to “torrents of personal abuse” and other claims that Paul Johnson characterizes as “nonsense.”
Seem familiar? It should, because Trump was also subjected to “torrents of personal abuse” by House managers during the impeachment trial.
Included among the impeachment articles adopted by the House in 1868 was a charge that Andrew Johnson had “challenged the authority” of Congress and had criticized Congress with “intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues.”
Sounds an awful lot like the House’s claim in the impeachment resolution that Trump “impeded” the House and engaged in “unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance” of Congress.
Furthermore, the Johnson impeachment charged that the president had unlawfully removed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (an ally of the radical Republicans) and replaced him with Ulysses S. Grant.
Although it was not in the impeachment resolution, Schiff and his compatriots spent an enormous amount of time going after the president for firing the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch (who was appointed by President Barack Obama), as if that was an abuse of power. This despite the fact that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.
Once again, the parallels between the Trump and Johnson impeachments are eerie.
Historians almost universally condemn the Johnson impeachment as “rash, reckless, and unwarranted,” as Schweikart and Allen explain. As Paul Johnson says, no “constructive purpose was served by this vendetta, and the only political consequence was the discrediting of those who conducted it.”
Now that the process is over, at least for now, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that this impeachment, which Democrats started talking about doing as soon as Trump was inaugurated, was the result of personal and political “vendettas” against the president.
Given that some polls show that Trump is now more popular with the public than at any time during his presidency, Democrats may also end up suffering the “political consequences” of their abuse of the impeachment process and the “discrediting of those who conducted it.”
Originally published in Fox News


Why Impeachment Failed

It ’ s comforting , no doubt , to believe that Donald Trump has survived the impeachment trial because he possesses a tighter hold on his party than did Barack Obama or George W. Bush or any other contemporary president .
In truth , Trump , often because of his own actions , has engendered less loyalty than the average president .
It ’ s difficult to recall , after all , a single Democratic senator throwing anything but hosannas Obama ’ s way , which allowed the former president to ride his high horse from one scandalous attack on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1998 , no Democrat voted to convict Bill Clinton , who had engaged in wrongdoing for wholly self-serving reasons , despite the GOP ’ s case being far more methodical and incriminating .
The chances of any party ’ s removing its sitting president without overwhelming evidence that fuels massive voter pressure are negligible .
It ’ s never happened in American history—unless you count the preemptive removal of Richard Nixon—and probably never will .
Democrats are demanding the GOP adopt standards that no party has ever lived by .
Perhaps if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years of interminable hysteria over the United States ’ imaginary descent into fascism , it might have been less apathetic toward the fate of “ vital ” Ukrainian aid that most Democrats had voted against when Obama was president .
And perhaps if institutional media hadn ’ t spent three years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion—a debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the impeachment trial—the public wouldn ’ t be anesthetized to another alleged national emergency .
You simply can ’ t expect a well-adjusted voter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end .
Beyond the public ’ s mood , the Democrats ’ strategy was a mess .
House Democrats and their 17 witnesses set impossible-to-meet expectations , declaring that Trump had engaged in the worst wrongdoing ever committed by any president in history .
( I ’ m not exaggerating . )
When it comes to Trump criticism , everything is always “ the worst thing ever !
” Even if Trump ’ s actions had risen to the level of removal , Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler were terrible messengers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the politicians you tap to persuade jurors ; they ’ re the politicians you pick to rile up your base .
Despite all the fabricated praise directed at Schiff over the past couple of weeks , the man reeks of partisanship .
Not only because he ’ s been caught lying about the presence of damning evidence against Trump on more than one occasion , but because he played a sketchy role in helping the whistleblower responsible for sparking the impeachment come forward .
Even then , instead of spending the appropriate time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ vital ” witnesses , and laying out a timeline , House Democrats , by their own admission , rushed forward .
They justified taking shortcuts by warning that the country was in a race to stop Trump from stealing the 2020 election just as he had allegedly stolen the 2016 election .
That wouldn ’ t have been a big deal if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hadn ’ t exposed the supposed need for urgency as a ruse , by withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate for weeks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dictate the terms of the trial , no constitutional right to attempt to dictate them , and no political leverage .
In the end , she got nothing from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for her trouble .
Meanwhile , Democrats had spent most of the House hearings focusing on difficult-to-prove specific criminal offenses of “ bribery ” and “ extortion ” —poll-tested words that were taken up after the House realized “ quid pro quo ” didn ’ t play as well with the public .
Then , they didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” —no , you don ’ t need a violation of criminal law to impeach , but the word was incessantly used by House Democrats anyway—in their open-ended articles of impeachment , written expressly to compel Senate Republicans to investigate for them .
The House had no right to demand that , and the Senate had no reason to comply .
So as soon as the upper chamber took up impeachment , Democrats began dropping one “ bombshell ” leak after the next—the same strategy they deployed during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings—to drag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage .
Some of us would certainly have preferred that more Republicans concede Trump ’ s call was unbecoming and , in parts , inappropriate , even if it didn ’ t rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
But Democrats keep demanding that Republicans play under a different set of rules .
The Constitution , a document under attack by the very people claiming to save it from the president , worked exactly as it should .
The House is free to subpoena all the “ vital ” witnesses Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new batch of impeachment articles .
Impeachment isn ’ t tantamount to a “ coup ” any more than Senate acquittal is unconstitutional or corrupt .
Pretending that democracy is on the precipice of extinction simply because you didn ’ t get your way , though , is nothing but histrionics .

It’s comforting, no doubt, to believe that Donald Trump has survived the impeachment trial because he possesses a tighter hold on his party than did Barack Obama or George W. Bush or any other contemporary president. In truth, Trump, often because of his own actions, has engendered less loyalty than the average president.
It’s difficult to recall, after all, a single Democratic senator throwing anything but hosannas Obama’s way, which allowed the former president to ride his high horse from one scandalous attack on the Constitution to the next.
In 1998, no Democrat voted to convict Bill Clinton, who had engaged in wrongdoing for wholly self-serving reasons, despite the GOP’s case being far more methodical and incriminating.
The chances of any party’s removing its sitting president without overwhelming evidence that fuels massive voter pressure are negligible. It’s never happened in American history—unless you count the preemptive removal of Richard Nixon—and probably never will. Democrats are demanding the GOP adopt standards that no party has ever lived by.
Perhaps if the public hadn’t been subjected to four years of interminable hysteria over the United States’ imaginary descent into fascism, it might have been less apathetic toward the fate of “vital” Ukrainian aid that most Democrats had voted against when Obama was president.
And perhaps if institutional media hadn’t spent three years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion—a debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the impeachment trial—the public wouldn’t be anesthetized to another alleged national emergency.
You simply can’t expect a well-adjusted voter to maintain CNN-levels of indignation for years on end.
Beyond the public’s mood, the Democrats’ strategy was a mess. House Democrats and their 17 witnesses set impossible-to-meet expectations, declaring that Trump had engaged in the worst wrongdoing ever committed by any president in history. (I’m not exaggerating.) When it comes to Trump criticism, everything is always “the worst thing ever!”
Even if Trump’s actions had risen to the level of removal, Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler were terrible messengers to make the case. These are not the politicians you tap to persuade jurors; they’re the politicians you pick to rile up your base.
Despite all the fabricated praise directed at Schiff over the past couple of weeks, the man reeks of partisanship. Not only because he’s been caught lying about the presence of damning evidence against Trump on more than one occasion, but because he played a sketchy role in helping the whistleblower responsible for sparking the impeachment come forward.
Even then, instead of spending the appropriate time building a solid case, subpoenaing all the “vital” witnesses, and laying out a timeline, House Democrats, by their own admission, rushed forward.
They justified taking shortcuts by warning that the country was in a race to stop Trump from stealing the 2020 election just as he had allegedly stolen the 2016 election.
That wouldn’t have been a big deal if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hadn’t exposed the supposed need for urgency as a ruse, by withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate for weeks.
She did so despite having zero standing to dictate the terms of the trial, no constitutional right to attempt to dictate them, and no political leverage.
In the end, she got nothing from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for her trouble.
Meanwhile, Democrats had spent most of the House hearings focusing on difficult-to-prove specific criminal offenses of “bribery” and “extortion”—poll-tested words that were taken up after the House realized “quid pro quo” didn’t play as well with the public.
Then, they didn’t even bother including the “crimes”—no, you don’t need a violation of criminal law to impeach, but the word was incessantly used by House Democrats anyway—in their open-ended articles of impeachment, written expressly to compel Senate Republicans to investigate for them.
The House had no right to demand that, and the Senate had no reason to comply. So as soon as the upper chamber took up impeachment, Democrats began dropping one “bombshell” leak after the next—the same strategy they deployed during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings—to drag out the spectacle and maximize the political damage.
Some of us would certainly have preferred that more Republicans concede Trump’s call was unbecoming and, in parts, inappropriate, even if it didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But Democrats keep demanding that Republicans play under a different set of rules.
The Constitution, a document under attack by the very people claiming to save it from the president, worked exactly as it should.
The House is free to subpoena all the “vital” witnesses Republicans have supposedly ignored, and then send a new batch of impeachment articles. Impeachment isn’t tantamount to a “coup” any more than Senate acquittal is unconstitutional or corrupt.
Pretending that democracy is on the precipice of extinction simply because you didn’t get your way, though, is nothing but histrionics.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-02-07--Trump’s Unorthodox Policy Wins Are Gaining Steady Support

When candidate Donald Trump campaigned on calling China to account for its trade piracy , observers thought he was either crazy or dangerous .
Conventional Washington wisdom had assumed that an ascendant Beijing was almost preordained to world hegemony .
Trump ’ s tariffs and polarization of China were considered about the worst thing an American president could do .
The accepted bipartisan strategy was to accommodate , not oppose , China ’ s growing power .
The hope was that its newfound wealth and global influence would liberalize the ruling communist government .
Four years later , only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an emerging consensus that China ’ s cutthroat violations of international norms were long ago overdue for an accounting .
China ’ s reeducation camps , its Orwellian internal surveillance , its crackdown on Hong Kong democracy activists , and its secrecy about the deadly coronavirus outbreak have all convinced the world that China has now become a dangerous international outlier .
Trump courted moderate Arab nations in forming an anti-Iranian coalition opposed to Iran ’ s terrorist and nuclear agendas .
His policies utterly reversed the Obama administration ’ s estrangement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last week , Trump nonchalantly offered the Palestinians a take-it-or-leave-it independent state on the West Bank , but without believing that a West Bank settlement was the key to peace in the entire Middle East .
Trump ’ s cancellation of the Iran deal , in particular , was met with international outrage .
More global anger followed after the targeted killing of Iranian terrorist leader Gen. Qassim Suleimani .
In short , Trump ’ s Middle East recalibrations won few supporters among the bipartisan establishment .
But recently , Europeans have privately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed on Iran , that the world is better off with Suleimani gone , and that the West Bank is not central to regional peace .
Iran has now become a pariah .
U.S.-sponsored sanctions have reduced the theocracy to near-bankruptcy .
Most nations understand that if Iran kills Americans or openly starts up its nuclear program , the U.S. will inflict disproportional damage on its infrastructure—a warning that at first baffled , then angered , and now has humiliated Iran .
In other words , there is now an entirely new Middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago .
Suddenly the pro-Iranian , anti-Western Palestinians have few supporters .
Israel and a number of prominent Arab nations are unspoken allies of convenience against Iran .
And Iran itself is seemingly weaker than at any other time in the theocracy ’ s history .
Stranger still , instead of demanding that the U.S. leave the region , many Middle Eastern nations privately seem eager for more of a now-reluctant U.S. presence .
For the last 20 years , much of the American orthodoxy had agreed with Europe that the increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union was the remedy to all of Europe ’ s past 20th-century catastrophes .
As a result , American presidents did not do much when EU nations typically racked up large trade surpluses with the U.S. , often a result of asymmetrical fees , tariffs , and fines .
The U.S. largely ignored the increasingly anti-democratic and anti-American tone of the EU .
Nor did Americans object much when lackadaisical European NATO nations habitually welched on their defense spending commitments .
Apparently , past U.S. administrations supposed that a paternalistic America would always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europe would be to defend itself .
But then Trump again blew up more old assumptions .
NATO will now only survive if its members keep their word and meet their spending promises .
An economically stagnant , oil-hungry , and top-heavy EU will have to make radical changes , or it will sink into irrelevance and eventually break apart .
Trump got little credit for these revolutionary changes because he is , after all , Trump—a wheeler-dealer , an ostentatious outsider , unpredictable in action , and not shy about rude talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ product of conservative , antiwar , and pro-worker agendas—are gradually winning supporters and uniting disparate groups .
After all , the U.S. is beefing up its military but using it only sparingly .
It hits back hard at enemies but does not hit first .
For Trump , being conventional is dangerous ; being unpredictable is far safer .
For all Trump ’ s tough talk , his ace in the hole is American soft power—based on a globally dominant economy , its global lead in the production of gas and oil , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , the ex-television star , wars translate into bad ratings and worse optics .
As a businessman , he believes needless conflicts get in the way of money-making and win-win deals .
The result of the new orthodoxy is that the U.S. has become no better friend to an increasing number of allies and neutrals , and no worse an adversary to a shrinking group of enemies .
And yet Trump ’ s paradox is that America ’ s successful new foreign policy is as praised privately as it is caricatured publicly—at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY , LLC .

When candidate Donald Trump campaigned on calling China to account for its trade piracy, observers thought he was either crazy or dangerous.
Conventional Washington wisdom had assumed that an ascendant Beijing was almost preordained to world hegemony. Trump’s tariffs and polarization of China were considered about the worst thing an American president could do.
The accepted bipartisan strategy was to accommodate, not oppose, China’s growing power. The hope was that its newfound wealth and global influence would liberalize the ruling communist government.
Four years later, only a naif believes that. Instead, there is an emerging consensus that China’s cutthroat violations of international norms were long ago overdue for an accounting.
China’s reeducation camps, its Orwellian internal surveillance, its crackdown on Hong Kong democracy activists, and its secrecy about the deadly coronavirus outbreak have all convinced the world that China has now become a dangerous international outlier.
Trump courted moderate Arab nations in forming an anti-Iranian coalition opposed to Iran’s terrorist and nuclear agendas. His policies utterly reversed the Obama administration’s estrangement from Israel and outreach to Tehran.
Last week, Trump nonchalantly offered the Palestinians a take-it-or-leave-it independent state on the West Bank, but without believing that a West Bank settlement was the key to peace in the entire Middle East.
Trump’s cancellation of the Iran deal, in particular, was met with international outrage. More global anger followed after the targeted killing of Iranian terrorist leader Gen. Qassim Suleimani.
In short, Trump’s Middle East recalibrations won few supporters among the bipartisan establishment.
But recently, Europeans have privately started to agree that more sanctions are needed on Iran, that the world is better off with Suleimani gone, and that the West Bank is not central to regional peace.
Iran has now become a pariah. U.S.-sponsored sanctions have reduced the theocracy to near-bankruptcy. Most nations understand that if Iran kills Americans or openly starts up its nuclear program, the U.S. will inflict disproportional damage on its infrastructure—a warning that at first baffled, then angered, and now has humiliated Iran.
In other words, there is now an entirely new Middle East orthodoxy that was unimaginable just three years ago.
Suddenly the pro-Iranian, anti-Western Palestinians have few supporters. Israel and a number of prominent Arab nations are unspoken allies of convenience against Iran. And Iran itself is seemingly weaker than at any other time in the theocracy’s history.
Stranger still, instead of demanding that the U.S. leave the region, many Middle Eastern nations privately seem eager for more of a now-reluctant U.S. presence.
For the last 20 years, much of the American orthodoxy had agreed with Europe that the increasingly anti-democratic, pan-continental, and borderless European Union was the remedy to all of Europe’s past 20th-century catastrophes.
As a result, American presidents did not do much when EU nations typically racked up large trade surpluses with the U.S., often a result of asymmetrical fees, tariffs, and fines.
The U.S. largely ignored the increasingly anti-democratic and anti-American tone of the EU.
Nor did Americans object much when lackadaisical European NATO nations habitually welched on their defense spending commitments.
Apparently, past U.S. administrations supposed that a paternalistic America would always be more eager to defend Europe than Europe would be to defend itself.
But then Trump again blew up more old assumptions.
NATO will now only survive if its members keep their word and meet their spending promises. An economically stagnant, oil-hungry, and top-heavy EU will have to make radical changes, or it will sink into irrelevance and eventually break apart.
Trump got little credit for these revolutionary changes because he is, after all, Trump—a wheeler-dealer, an ostentatious outsider, unpredictable in action, and not shy about rude talk.
But his paradoxical and successful policies—the product of conservative, antiwar, and pro-worker agendas—are gradually winning supporters and uniting disparate groups.
After all, the U.S. is beefing up its military but using it only sparingly. It hits back hard at enemies but does not hit first. For Trump, being conventional is dangerous; being unpredictable is far safer.
For all Trump’s tough talk, his ace in the hole is American soft power—based on a globally dominant economy, its global lead in the production of gas and oil, and an omnipresent cultural juggernaut.
For Trump, the ex-television star, wars translate into bad ratings and worse optics. As a businessman, he believes needless conflicts get in the way of money-making and win-win deals.
The result of the new orthodoxy is that the U.S. has become no better friend to an increasing number of allies and neutrals, and no worse an adversary to a shrinking group of enemies. And yet Trump’s paradox is that America’s successful new foreign policy is as praised privately as it is caricatured publicly—at least for now.
(C) 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.