dailysignal--2020-01-20--The Senate Impeachment Trial: 8 Things You Need to Know

The House of Representatives has chosen members to participate in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump , and they have presented the articles of impeachment to the Senate .
This is only the third impeachment trial of a president in our nation ’ s history , with the others occurring in 1868 for Andrew Johnson and 1999 for Bill Clinton .
Here are eight things you need to know as the Senate prepares to begin Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
1 .
When Will the Trial Begin , and How Long Will It Last ?
Senate President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administered the oath Thursday to Chief Justice John Roberts , who will preside over the trial .
Roberts , in turn , administered the oath to all senators .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , announced that the trial itself will begin at 1 p.m. Tuesday .
The Clinton impeachment took five weeks , and Johnson ’ s lasted 11 weeks .
The Senate ’ s impeachment trial rules , adopted in 1986 , mandate that the trial should begin at noon and last until the Senate decides to adjourn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judgment shall be rendered.
” 2 .
What Happens at the Trial ?
An impeachment trial is not like a run-of-the-mill trial , but it does have some similarities .
House managers will act as the prosecution , presenting the case for impeachment to the senators , whose role is a combination of judge and jury .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , announced the seven members of the House who will serve as the managers , including Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s defense , including White House counsel Pat Cipollone ; Trump ’ s personal attorney , Jay Sekulow ; and former independent counsel Ken Starr , whose investigation into the Whitewater controversy led to Clinton ’ s impeachment .
Roberts will preside over the trial , consistent with Article 3 , Section 6 of the Constitution , although it is mostly a ceremonial role .
After presiding over Clinton ’ s impeachment trial , then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist said , “ I took a leaf out of [ Gilbert and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iolanthe ’ … ‘ I did nothing in particular , and did it very well.
’ ” When the trial begins , the Senate will adopt a resolution establishing the specific timetable , including the time allotted for each side to present its case , senators to ask questions , and the Senate to consider motions .
At that point , if the Senate follows the general pattern of the Clinton trial , the Senate will vote on a motion to dismiss the impeachment and , if that motion fails , on whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During Johnson ’ s impeachment trial , the prosecution and defense called a total of 41 witnesses .
During the Clinton trial , three witnesses provided videotaped testimony .
McConnell and several other Senate Republicans have indicated they think the Senate should rely on transcripts of the testimony of witnesses who appeared before the House , while Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , and several other Democrats have demanded that witnesses be called to testify .
3 .
Does the President Have to Appear Before the Senate ?
No .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the individual being tried , its impeachment trial rules allow for an appearance by the defendant or by his attorney .
The Senate tried , unsuccessfully , to force Johnson to appear for his impeachment trial .
The New York Times published an account of how Chief Justice Salmon Chase asked the Senate sergeant-at-arms to summon the president .
“ In a loud voice , and amid the stillness of the whole chamber , he called three times , ‘ Andrew Johnson , Andrew Johnson , Andrew Johnson !
’ ” but instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Attorney General Henry Stanbery ( who resigned the day before ) and former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis , arrived .
Clinton likewise did not appear before the Senate during his trial .
Trump previously indicated he would “ strongly consider ” testifying or providing a written statement to the House during its impeachment inquiry , but that didn ’ t happen .
Odds are , Trump won ’ t be present at the Senate trial .
4 .
What Are the Rules the Senators Will Follow ?
Senators are not required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During the 1986 impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Harry E. Claiborne , he made a motion to designate “ beyond a reasonable doubt ” —the standard in criminal trials—as the standard for his trial .
After the presiding officer ruled that “ the question of standard of evidence is for each senator to decide individually , ” the Senate voted 75 to 17 against establishing a mandatory standard .
Similarly , the rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply in an impeachment trial .
The Senate ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presiding officer has the authority to rule on questions of evidence .
Any senator , however , may ask that the full Senate vote on such matters .
That reflects the Constitution ’ s assignment to the Senate of “ the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
” 5 .
Can Senators Be Disqualified for Showing Bias ?
Senators have taken an oath to “ do impartial justice , according to the Constitution and laws ” in all things pertaining to the impeachment trial .
Sen. Dick Durbin , D-Ill. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators have already failed to meet the “ independent and dignified ” standard the Constitution envisioned .
There have already been calls for the House managers to move to disqualify senators whose impartiality is in question .
There is no basis in the Constitution , Senate rules , or history for such an attempt .
The only qualification for participating in a Senate impeachment trial is to be a senator .
6 .
What Happens After the Trial ?
While the trial itself will be open to the public , the Senate ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
The Senate will then come back into public session to vote on each article of impeachment .
Senate impeachment trial rules say that the Senate must vote on each article in its entirety , and the Constitution requires the vote of “ two-thirds of the [ senators ] present ” for conviction .
Removal from office is automatic upon conviction , and the Senate may vote separately whether to disqualify the defendant from serving in any other federal office .
The Constitution explicitly provides , however , that these consequences by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defendant ’ s conduct is also criminal , prevent “ Indictment , Trial , Judgment and Punishment , according to Law.
” 7 .
If the Vote Fails in the Senate , Can the President Be Retried ?
In theory , he likely could be retried in the future .
Although neither the Constitution nor Senate rules address this issue , and no precedent exists for it , a few legal scholars , such as former Obama administration official Neal Katyal , have pointed out that the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retrial on the same charges , however , would seem highly unlikely , and such a retrial would certainly run counter to the general principle of double jeopardy that someone can not be tried twice for the same offense .
What is more plausible and likely is that the House would introduce new articles of impeachment , which it could do .
8 .
Will the Senate Conduct Other Business During the Trial , and Will It Interfere With the Supreme Court ’ s Work ?
Senate committees may hold hearings in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing any business such as sending bills , nominations , or other matters to the full Senate would require the consent of all senators .
The Senate impeachment rules provide that the chamber must suspend its legislative and executive business while the trial is under way .
The trial should not affect the Supreme Court ’ s oral argument schedule .
The court has arguments scheduled Tuesday and Wednesday , but those will conclude by 11 a.m .
The court won ’ t meet again for arguments until Feb. 24 .
Aside from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the afternoon , the trial is unlikely to otherwise affect the court .

The House of Representatives has chosen members to participate in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and they have presented the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
This is only the third impeachment trial of a president in our nation’s history, with the others occurring in 1868 for Andrew Johnson and 1999 for Bill Clinton.
Here are eight things you need to know as the Senate prepares to begin Trump’s impeachment trial.
1. When Will the Trial Begin, and How Long Will It Last?
Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, administered the oath Thursday to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the trial.
Roberts, in turn, administered the oath to all senators. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced that the trial itself will begin at 1 p.m. Tuesday.
The Clinton impeachment took five weeks, and Johnson’s lasted 11 weeks. The Senate’s impeachment trial rules, adopted in 1986, mandate that the trial should begin at noon and last until the Senate decides to adjourn, Monday through Saturday, “until final judgment shall be rendered.”
2. What Happens at the Trial?
An impeachment trial is not like a run-of-the-mill trial, but it does have some similarities. House managers will act as the prosecution, presenting the case for impeachment to the senators, whose role is a combination of judge and jury.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the seven members of the House who will serve as the managers, including Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.
A team of lawyers will put on the president’s defense, including White House counsel Pat Cipollone; Trump’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow; and former independent counsel Ken Starr, whose investigation into the Whitewater controversy led to Clinton’s impeachment.
Roberts will preside over the trial, consistent with Article 3, Section 6 of the Constitution, although it is mostly a ceremonial role.
After presiding over Clinton’s impeachment trial, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, “I took a leaf out of [Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic opera] ‘Iolanthe’ … ‘I did nothing in particular, and did it very well.’”
When the trial begins, the Senate will adopt a resolution establishing the specific timetable, including the time allotted for each side to present its case, senators to ask questions, and the Senate to consider motions.
At that point, if the Senate follows the general pattern of the Clinton trial, the Senate will vote on a motion to dismiss the impeachment and, if that motion fails, on whether additional witnesses or evidence should be considered.
During Johnson’s impeachment trial, the prosecution and defense called a total of 41 witnesses. During the Clinton trial, three witnesses provided videotaped testimony.
McConnell and several other Senate Republicans have indicated they think the Senate should rely on transcripts of the testimony of witnesses who appeared before the House, while Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and several other Democrats have demanded that witnesses be called to testify.
3. Does the President Have to Appear Before the Senate?
No. While the Senate does issue a summons to the individual being tried, its impeachment trial rules allow for an appearance by the defendant or by his attorney.
The Senate tried, unsuccessfully, to force Johnson to appear for his impeachment trial. The New York Times published an account of how Chief Justice Salmon Chase asked the Senate sergeant-at-arms to summon the president.
“In a loud voice, and amid the stillness of the whole chamber, he called three times, ‘Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson!’” but instead the president’s legal team, including Attorney General Henry Stanbery (who resigned the day before) and former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis, arrived.
Clinton likewise did not appear before the Senate during his trial.
Trump previously indicated he would “strongly consider” testifying or providing a written statement to the House during its impeachment inquiry, but that didn’t happen. Odds are, Trump won’t be present at the Senate trial.
4. What Are the Rules the Senators Will Follow?
Senators are not required to employ a specific standard of proof. During the 1986 impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Harry E. Claiborne, he made a motion to designate “beyond a reasonable doubt”—the standard in criminal trials—as the standard for his trial.
After the presiding officer ruled that “the question of standard of evidence is for each senator to decide individually,” the Senate voted 75 to 17 against establishing a mandatory standard.
Similarly, the rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply in an impeachment trial. The Senate’s impeachment trial rules state that the Senate’s presiding officer has the authority to rule on questions of evidence.
Any senator, however, may ask that the full Senate vote on such matters. That reflects the Constitution’s assignment to the Senate of “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
5. Can Senators Be Disqualified for Showing Bias?
Senators have taken an oath to “do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and laws” in all things pertaining to the impeachment trial.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the minority whip, argued that some senators have already failed to meet the “independent and dignified” standard the Constitution envisioned.
There have already been calls for the House managers to move to disqualify senators whose impartiality is in question. There is no basis in the Constitution, Senate rules, or history for such an attempt.
The only qualification for participating in a Senate impeachment trial is to be a senator.
6. What Happens After the Trial?
While the trial itself will be open to the public, the Senate’s deliberations after its conclusion will not be.
The Senate will then come back into public session to vote on each article of impeachment. Senate impeachment trial rules say that the Senate must vote on each article in its entirety, and the Constitution requires the vote of “two-thirds of the [senators] present” for conviction.
Removal from office is automatic upon conviction, and the Senate may vote separately whether to disqualify the defendant from serving in any other federal office.
The Constitution explicitly provides, however, that these consequences by the Senate do not, if the defendant’s conduct is also criminal, prevent “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
7. If the Vote Fails in the Senate, Can the President Be Retried?
In theory, he likely could be retried in the future. Although neither the Constitution nor Senate rules address this issue, and no precedent exists for it, a few legal scholars, such as former Obama administration official Neal Katyal, have pointed out that the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to impeachment proceedings.
A retrial on the same charges, however, would seem highly unlikely, and such a retrial would certainly run counter to the general principle of double jeopardy that someone cannot be tried twice for the same offense.
What is more plausible and likely is that the House would introduce new articles of impeachment, which it could do.
8. Will the Senate Conduct Other Business During the Trial, and Will It Interfere With the Supreme Court’s Work?
Senate committees may hold hearings in the morning of each trial day, but doing any business such as sending bills, nominations, or other matters to the full Senate would require the consent of all senators.
The Senate impeachment rules provide that the chamber must suspend its legislative and executive business while the trial is under way.
The trial should not affect the Supreme Court’s oral argument schedule. The court has arguments scheduled Tuesday and Wednesday, but those will conclude by 11 a.m.
The court won’t meet again for arguments until Feb. 24. Aside from taking up some of Roberts’ time in the afternoon, the trial is unlikely to otherwise affect the court.


dailysignal--2020-01-21--The Show Trial Begins

The Show Trial Begins

The contrast could not have been starker .
One picture showed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiling as she signed ( with numerous pens ) two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump .
She passed out the pens like souvenirs to fellow Democrats .
They were embossed in gold with her signature and rested on silver trays .
The other picture was of Trump signing Phase 1 of a new trade deal with China .
Which picture depicted events of greater long-term benefit to Americans ?
Unless you are a rank partisan out to remove Trump from office by whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China trade deal .
The latest wrench thrown into the machinery of government comes from Democrats who released to their compliant media friends a “ note to self ” written on a hotel notepad supposedly by Lev Parnas , a former associate of Rudy Giuliani , the president ’ s personal attorney and a frequent flyer to Ukraine .
The note said , “ Get [ Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ] to announce that the Biden case will be investigated.
” Democrats claim Parnas was an intermediary in the effort to get Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hunter Biden .
Parnas ’ credibility would be in doubt were he under oath before a court , instead of “ testifying ” on various cable TV programs .
Parnas heads a company that claims to combat fraud .
Oh , the irony !
Democrats insist the Senate trial be “ fair.
” How is it fair when House Democrats continue to leak documents they hope will damage the president and influence senators to vote for his removal from office ?
Some Democratic senators , who will sit in judgment of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is politics at its worst and opens the door , as some of the Founders warned , for “ normalizing ” impeachment .
Historical background is always helpful and so I consulted the National Constitution Center , a private , nonprofit organization and a leading platform for constitutional education and debate , where I found this : The “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” language ( in the Constitution ) remains controversial today .
In two essays … Neil J. Kinkopf and Keith E. Whittington looked at the Founder ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When the Founders wanted to ensure accountability , they mostly relied on elections and the voters to hold government officials responsible for their actions , ” said Whittington .
“ But what might fall into the category of ‘ other high Crimes and Misdemeanors ’ was still quite unclear.
” Trump ’ s call to Ukraine ’ s president , which is at the heart of the impeachment articles , does not meet the standard of seriously harming the public or compromising the president ’ s ability to do his job as shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USMCA trade agreement between the U.S. , Mexico , and Canada , both signed and passed days after impeachment .
That the Government Accountability Office says the president “ broke the law ” by withholding $ 250 million in military aid to Ukraine , aid Congress had approved , doesn ’ t help the president ’ s defenders , but does it rise to the level of a “ high crime and misdemeanor ” ?
Senators will decide .
But they should recall that in 2014 the GAO ruled President Barack Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detainees for deserter Bowe Bergdahl violated federal law .
Obama was not impeached .
Pelosi summed up the true motives of Democrats when she said that regardless of what the Senate does , impeachment will be a “ permanent stain ” on Trump ’ s legacy .
In fact , the stain will be on Democrats .
It is Democrats who have plotted ways to reverse the will of voters who elected Trump .
It is Democrats who fear he will be overwhelmingly reelected in November .

The contrast could not have been starker. One picture showed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiling as she signed (with numerous pens) two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.
She passed out the pens like souvenirs to fellow Democrats. They were embossed in gold with her signature and rested on silver trays.
The other picture was of Trump signing Phase 1 of a new trade deal with China.
Which picture depicted events of greater long-term benefit to Americans? Unless you are a rank partisan out to remove Trump from office by whatever means, the obvious answer is the China trade deal.
The latest wrench thrown into the machinery of government comes from Democrats who released to their compliant media friends a “note to self” written on a hotel notepad supposedly by Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney and a frequent flyer to Ukraine.
The note said, “Get [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy] to announce that the Biden case will be investigated.”
Democrats claim Parnas was an intermediary in the effort to get Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
Parnas’ credibility would be in doubt were he under oath before a court, instead of “testifying” on various cable TV programs. Parnas heads a company that claims to combat fraud. Oh, the irony!
Democrats insist the Senate trial be “fair.” How is it fair when House Democrats continue to leak documents they hope will damage the president and influence senators to vote for his removal from office? Some Democratic senators, who will sit in judgment of the president, have already declared him guilty.
It is politics at its worst and opens the door, as some of the Founders warned, for “normalizing” impeachment.
Historical background is always helpful and so I consulted the National Constitution Center, a private, nonprofit organization and a leading platform for constitutional education and debate, where I found this: The “high crimes and misdemeanors” language (in the Constitution) remains controversial today. In two essays … Neil J. Kinkopf and Keith E. Whittington looked at the Founder’s vision:
The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts …
The article continues: “When the Founders wanted to ensure accountability, they mostly relied on elections and the voters to hold government officials responsible for their actions,” said Whittington. “But what might fall into the category of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was still quite unclear.”
Trump’s call to Ukraine’s president, which is at the heart of the impeachment articles, does not meet the standard of seriously harming the public or compromising the president’s ability to do his job as shown by the China trade deal and the USMCA trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, both signed and passed days after impeachment.
That the Government Accountability Office says the president “broke the law” by withholding $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, aid Congress had approved, doesn’t help the president’s defenders, but does it rise to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor”?
Senators will decide. But they should recall that in 2014 the GAO ruled President Barack Obama’s prisoner deal to exchange Guantanamo Bay detainees for deserter Bowe Bergdahl violated federal law. Obama was not impeached.
Pelosi summed up the true motives of Democrats when she said that regardless of what the Senate does, impeachment will be a “permanent stain” on Trump’s legacy.
In fact, the stain will be on Democrats. It is Democrats who have plotted ways to reverse the will of voters who elected Trump. It is Democrats who fear he will be overwhelmingly reelected in November.
(c) 2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-01-21--Senate Liberals Are Trying to Rig Impeachment Trial

In a column published at Law.com in December , one commentator argued that senators who refuse to be impartial should be disqualified from participating in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
A few days ago , an ethics lawyer from the George W. Bush administration called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , a “ perjurer ” for taking the oath to “ do impartial justice ” in the trial after saying he would not be an “ impartial juror.
” They might want to reconsider their position .
If these people really mean what they say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken a position on the president ’ s guilt would have to bow out .
In that case , say goodbye to Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. On Monday , Jan. 13 , she spoke on the Senate floor and stated , as a fact , that Trump “ pressured a foreign nation to interfere in our elections.
” That ’ s an almost word-for-word recitation of the first impeachment article , which states that Trump “ solicited the interference of a foreign government … in the 2020 United States presidential election.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ it is unacceptable for a president to shake down a vulnerable foreign nation for personal or political benefit.
” This too echoes the first impeachment article , which claims that Trump used the power of his office “ to obtain an improper personal political benefit.
” If publicly accusing a defendant of the specific offense for which he has been impeached , in virtually identical language as that impeachment , is not refusing to be impartial , what is ?
Harris , however , is far from alone .
Sen. Mazie Hirono @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presumption of innocence during the confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh , has said she would vote to convict unless Trump could actually exonerate himself .
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse , D-R.I. , says that the impeachment articles are supported by “ a wealth of undisputed facts.
” And Sen. Richard Blumenthal , D-Conn. , was even more direct , saying that the “ case is clear : President Trump tried to trade away our national security for a personal political favor.
” As if reading directly from the same talking points , Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ President Trump put our national security at risk in order to obtain political favors.
” And Sen. Christopher Murphy , D-Conn. , insists that “ the bottom line is this : President Trump abused his authority by using taxpayer-funded aid to pressure a foreign government to help him win reelection in 2020.
” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , has similarly attacked McConnell , accusing him of refusing to be impartial .
Yet , as CNN has reported , leading up to President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ not like a jury box.
” Indeed , when running for the Senate in 1998 , he asked people to vote for him precisely because he would be a vote to acquit Clinton .
House Democrats rigged the rules to guarantee a pre-determined impeachment result .
Now Senate Democrats are trying to rig the jury pool by trying to exclude senators not likely to convict .
We all know how this is going to end .
Try the impeachment and let ’ s move on .

In a column published at Law.com in December, one commentator argued that senators who refuse to be impartial should be disqualified from participating in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
A few days ago, an ethics lawyer from the George W. Bush administration called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a “perjurer” for taking the oath to “do impartial justice” in the trial after saying he would not be an “impartial juror.” They might want to reconsider their position.
If these people really mean what they say, of course, any senator who has taken a position on the president’s guilt would have to bow out.
In that case, say goodbye to Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. On Monday, Jan. 13, she spoke on the Senate floor and stated, as a fact, that Trump “pressured a foreign nation to interfere in our elections.” That’s an almost word-for-word recitation of the first impeachment article, which states that Trump “solicited the interference of a foreign government … in the 2020 United States presidential election.”
Harris went on to say that “it is unacceptable for a president to shake down a vulnerable foreign nation for personal or political benefit.” This too echoes the first impeachment article, which claims that Trump used the power of his office “to obtain an improper personal political benefit.”
If publicly accusing a defendant of the specific offense for which he has been impeached, in virtually identical language as that impeachment, is not refusing to be impartial, what is? Harris, however, is far from alone.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, who had rejected the presumption of innocence during the confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, has said she would vote to convict unless Trump could actually exonerate himself.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., says that the impeachment articles are supported by “a wealth of undisputed facts.” And Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., was even more direct, saying that the “case is clear: President Trump tried to trade away our national security for a personal political favor.”
As if reading directly from the same talking points, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., says that “President Trump put our national security at risk in order to obtain political favors.” And Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Conn., insists that “the bottom line is this: President Trump abused his authority by using taxpayer-funded aid to pressure a foreign government to help him win reelection in 2020.”
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has similarly attacked McConnell, accusing him of refusing to be impartial. Yet, as CNN has reported, leading up to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, Schumer repeatedly said that the Senate is “not like a jury box.” Indeed, when running for the Senate in 1998, he asked people to vote for him precisely because he would be a vote to acquit Clinton.
Impartiality, anyone?
House Democrats rigged the rules to guarantee a pre-determined impeachment result. Now Senate Democrats are trying to rig the jury pool by trying to exclude senators not likely to convict. We all know how this is going to end. Try the impeachment and let’s move on.
Originally published by National Review


dailysignal--2020-01-21--House’s Prosecutors Supported Impeachment Well Before Trump’s Ukraine Call

Three of the House Democrats prosecuting President Donald Trump in the Senate ’ s impeachment trial—Jerry Nadler of New York , Zoe Lofgren of California , and Sylvia Garcia of Texas—are among lawmakers who voted last year to advance the president ’ s removal .
Eight days after that vote , Trump talked by phone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the July 25 call in which the leaders discussed former Vice President Joe Biden and his son ’ s highly paid role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma .
That conversation was the basis for House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s impeachment .
On July 17 , however , Rep. Al Green , D-Texas , had brought his third impeachment resolution to the House floor , forcing a procedural vote on articles of impeachment against Trump for disparaging “ the squad , ” the name for a group of four progressive House freshmen .
The vote was on whether to allow debate or to table the resolution .
The motion failed , with 332 lawmakers voting to table the matter—in other words , against impeachment .
But 95 Democrats—the highest pro-impeachment tally to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution .
Nadler , chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , explained at the time that he wanted to keep options open .
“ I opposed this procedural motion because this article of impeachment should have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee , ” Nadler said .
“ My hope is that future impeachment resolutions be referred here as well , so that they can also be considered as part of the committee ’ s overall response to clear allegations of presidential misconduct.
” The Senate trial of Trump began Tuesday based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the House in December and accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Nadler and the other six House managers , or prosecutors , and the president ’ s lawyers debated the rules of the trial going forward .
The House ’ s Dec. 18 votes to impeach Trump on two charges , taken together , represented the fourth overall impeachment resolution taken up by the full House in some form .
Four of the seven impeachment managers voted for at least one of Green ’ s previous impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an impeachment inquiry .
Four other House managers—House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of California and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York , Val Demings of Florida , and Jason Crow of Colorado—voted in July to table Green ’ s resolution .
However , Crow was among 66 Democrats who voted for Green ’ s resolution in January 2018 accusing Trump of being “ unfit to defend the ideals that made America great , unfit to defend liberty and justice for all , unfit to defend the American ideals of all people created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump supposedly referred to certain “ s—hole countries ” in a private meeting with Republican and Democratic lawmakers .
Crow was the only one of the seven House impeachment managers to support this particular resolution .
Well before the anonymous whistleblower complaint arising from the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call , Crow wrote a piece for Medium calling for an impeachment inquiry and saying : Green previously forced a procedural floor vote in December 2017 on a resolution accusing Trump of “ inciting hatred and hostility.
” Only 58 Democrats backed this first impeachment resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the seven House impeachment managers were among them .
Long before House Democrats drafted the two articles of impeachment against Trump for “ abuse of power ” and “ obstruction of Congress , ” neither of which is a criminal statute , Green argued that evidence of a crime is not necessary to impeach a president .
Demings didn ’ t vote for any of the Green resolutions .
But shortly after release of the Mueller report in April 2019 and long before the Ukraine controversy emerged , she expressed impatience with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We are struggling to justify why we aren ’ t beginning impeachment proceedings , ” said Demings , former police chief of Orlando , Florida , according to Politico .
“ As a 27-year law enforcement officer , and while I understand we need to see the full report and all supporting documents , I believe we have enough evidence now.
” “ Mueller didn ’ t do us any favors , ” Demings added , claiming the special counsel only “ left us bread crumbs to follow.
” On May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I just believe we are at the point of opening impeachment proceedings.
” The bulk of arguments Tuesday revolved around whether the Senate would allow witness testimony and the gathering of new documents .
By late afternoon , the Senate voted along party lines , 53 Republicans to 47 Democrats , to reject an amendment by Minority Leader Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , to subpoena White House documents and witnesses for the trial .
Democrats had rushed the articles of impeachment through the House and now are calling to slow down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence .
“ We find enormous hypocrisy that in the House Intelligence Committee , we went through a process in which this White House was denied the opportunity to have counsel present , denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses , [ and ] denied the opportunity to bring their own witnesses , all because we were told this has to be rushed through as quickly as possible , ” Short told reporters Tuesday at the White House .
“ Yet , what you hear from [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are moving too quickly , we have to slow down , ” Short said .
“ Obviously there is enormous hypocrisy .
The American people see that .
They are ready for this chapter to be over .
”

Three of the House Democrats prosecuting President Donald Trump in the Senate’s impeachment trial—Jerry Nadler of New York, Zoe Lofgren of California, and Sylvia Garcia of Texas—are among lawmakers who voted last year to advance the president’s removal.
Eight days after that vote, Trump talked by phone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the July 25 call in which the leaders discussed former Vice President Joe Biden and his son’s highly paid role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
That conversation was the basis for House Democrats’ formal inquiry leading to Trump’s impeachment.
On July 17, however, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, had brought his third impeachment resolution to the House floor, forcing a procedural vote on articles of impeachment against Trump for disparaging “the squad,” the name for a group of four progressive House freshmen.
The vote was on whether to allow debate or to table the resolution. The motion failed, with 332 lawmakers voting to table the matter—in other words, against impeachment.
But 95 Democrats—the highest pro-impeachment tally to that point—voted against tabling Green’s resolution.
Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, explained at the time that he wanted to keep options open.
“I opposed this procedural motion because this article of impeachment should have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee,” Nadler said. “My hope is that future impeachment resolutions be referred here as well, so that they can also be considered as part of the committee’s overall response to clear allegations of presidential misconduct.”
The Senate trial of Trump began Tuesday based on two articles of impeachment, passed by the House in December and accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Nadler and the other six House managers, or prosecutors, and the president’s lawyers debated the rules of the trial going forward.
The House’s Dec. 18 votes to impeach Trump on two charges, taken together, represented the fourth overall impeachment resolution taken up by the full House in some form.
Other House managers spoke in favor of an impeachment inquiry.
Nadler voted to table Green’s two previous resolutions.
Four other House managers—House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of California and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Val Demings of Florida, and Jason Crow of Colorado—voted in July to table Green’s resolution.
Well before the anonymous whistleblower complaint arising from the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, Crow wrote a piece for Medium calling for an impeachment inquiry and saying:
I didn’t run for office because I dislike Donald Trump. I ran because I love our country. It’s that same pride in our democracy and respect for our Constitution that fuels my support for an impeachment inquiry. We must complete the work started by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It’s a solemn responsibility of Congress that the Framers of our Constitution included to protect the rule-of-law.
Green previously forced a procedural floor vote in December 2017 on a resolution accusing Trump of “inciting hatred and hostility.”
Only 58 Democrats backed this first impeachment resolution in a floor vote, and none of the seven House impeachment managers were among them.
Long before House Democrats drafted the two articles of impeachment against Trump for “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” neither of which is a criminal statute, Green argued that evidence of a crime is not necessary to impeach a president.
Demings didn’t vote for any of the Green resolutions. But shortly after release of the Mueller report in April 2019 and long before the Ukraine controversy emerged, she expressed impatience with the slow pace and frustration with Mueller.
“We are struggling to justify why we aren’t beginning impeachment proceedings,” said Demings, former police chief of Orlando, Florida, according to Politico. “As a 27-year law enforcement officer, and while I understand we need to see the full report and all supporting documents, I believe we have enough evidence now.”
“Mueller didn’t do us any favors,” Demings added, claiming the special counsel only “left us bread crumbs to follow.”
On May 21, Demings said on CNN: “I just believe we are at the point of opening impeachment proceedings.”
The bulk of arguments Tuesday revolved around whether the Senate would allow witness testimony and the gathering of new documents.
By late afternoon, the Senate voted along party lines, 53 Republicans to 47 Democrats, to reject an amendment by Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to subpoena White House documents and witnesses for the trial.
Democrats had rushed the articles of impeachment through the House and now are calling to slow down the Senate trial, said Marc Short, chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence.
“We find enormous hypocrisy that in the House Intelligence Committee, we went through a process in which this White House was denied the opportunity to have counsel present, denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, [and] denied the opportunity to bring their own witnesses, all because we were told this has to be rushed through as quickly as possible,” Short told reporters Tuesday at the White House.
“Yet, what you hear from [Democrats] today is that Senate Republicans are moving too quickly, we have to slow down,” Short said. “Obviously there is enormous hypocrisy. The American people see that. They are ready for this chapter to be over.”


dailysignal--2020-01-23--5 Flash Points From Impeachment Trial’s Opening Arguments

House prosecutors claimed Wednesday that President Donald Trump is trying to “ cheat ” to win the 2020 election , as opening arguments from each side commenced in the Senate impeachment trial of the president .
The seven House Democrats who are impeachment managers , acting as prosecutors , made their case against Trump .
They include House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of California and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York .
Presenting the other side was the president ’ s legal defense team , which includes White House counsel Pat Cipollone ; Trump ’ s personal lawyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counsel Ken Starr .
Under rules approved late Tuesday , each side has a total of 24 hours of speaking time on the Senate floor to make their case , a time allotment that may be spread over three days .
After each side presents its case , the Senate will vote on whether to call witnesses to testify .
The rules are similar to those used in the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton , who was acquitted .
It takes a two-thirds vote , or 67 senators , to remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the seven House impeachment managers have up to 24 hours over three days to persuade senators to convict Trump and remove him from office .
Schiff opened the proceedings with a presentation lasting more than two hours .
He used video and text messages to support his case , including 2016 campaign footage and clips from sworn witnesses at the House impeachment hearings in November .
Here are five dramatic scenes from the second full day of the Senate impeachment trial , which began shortly after 1 p.m. and continued into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Be Decided at the Ballot Box ’ A July 25 phone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led to the Democrat-controlled House ’ s voting , without support from a single Republican , to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
During their call , Trump and Zelenskyy referred to Hunter Biden ’ s highly paid role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma at a time when his father , then-Vice President Joe Biden , was the Obama administration ’ s point man on Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcript of the call released by the president , Trump asked Zelenskyy “ to look into ” Joe Biden ’ s admission that he forced the firing of a Ukrainian state prosecutor who was investigating Burisma .
Schiff told the Senate , sitting as a jury , that impeachment and removal of Trump is not about a policy disagreement .
“ We are here today to consider a much more grave matter , and that is the attempt to use the power of the presidency to cheat in an election , ” Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November , when Trump seeks a second term , Schiff rejected the notion that the matter should be left to voters .
“ The president ’ s misconduct can not be decided at the ballot box , ” Schiff said , adding : Although one impeachment article alleges Trump was soliciting Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election , the House impeachment managers brought up Russia again .
This comes despite the conclusion by special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s team that neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with Russian government operatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schiff became chairman when Democrats reclaimed the House majority in the 2018 elections , the House Intelligence Committee reached a similar conclusion prior to release of the Mueller report .
Nevertheless , Schiff wasn ’ t ready to let the subject of Russia go .
“ This is not the first time the president solicited foreign interference in our elections , ” Schiff said .
“ In 2016 , then-candidate Trump implored Russia to hack his opponent ’ s email account—something the Russian military did only hours later .
Only hours later .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hey Russia , if you ’ re listening , ’ they were listening .
Only hours later , they hacked his opponent ’ s campaign.
” In 2016 , Trump ’ s Democratic rival for the presidency , former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , was under FBI investigation for conducting State Department business over an unsecure private email server .
Weeks after then-FBI Director James Comey announced that he wouldn ’ t recommend prosecution of Clinton , despite thousands of “ missing ” emails , Trump talked about the issue on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news that Russia was believed to have hacked the Democratic National Committee .
“ If it is Russia , it ’ s really bad for a different reason , ” Trump said at a rally on July 27 , 2016 .
“ Because it shows how little respect they have for our country when they would hack into a major party and get everything.
” “ But it would be interesting to see—I will tell you this , Russia , if you ’ re listening , I hope you ’ re able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Trump said .
“ I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press .
Let ’ s see if that happens .
That will be next.
” Later in the House impeachment managers ’ arguments in the Senate , a video clip showed a Trump interview with ABC News after the Mueller investigation concluded , in which Trump was asked if he would report to the FBI if Russia or China offered him negative information on his opponent , or would take the information .
“ I think maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the network in June .
“ I think you might want to listen ; there isn ’ t anything wrong with listening .
If somebody called from a country , Norway , [ and said , ] ‘ We have information on your opponent ’ —oh , I think I ’ d want to hear it.
” Arguing on the Senate floor , Rep. Sylvia Garcia , D-Texas , proclaimed of the clip : “ Shocking video.
” Trump apparently weighed in on Schiff ’ s arguments from the economic conference he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took the time for a short tweet , in all capital letters : “ NO PRESSURE.
” The president was making the point that he did not pressure Zelenskyy to conduct investigations of the Bidens and possible Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election in order to get $ 391 million in congressional approved military aid .
Zelenskyy also has said repeatedly that there was no pressure from Trump .
Trump defenders and independent legal analysts frequently note that after House Democrats failed in their effort to show Trump had engaged in bribery or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vague charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—neither of which are crimes in federal statutes .
However , Schiff pointed to a Government Accountability Office opinion last week that said Trump violated a law called the Impoundment Control Act in delaying the congressionally approved assistance to Ukraine .
The California Democrat said the president ’ s lawyers “ pooh-poohed ” the GAO ’ s finding .
“ They are a nonpartisan organization that both parties have come to rely upon , but I ’ m not surprised they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Defense Department warned them that this was going to be the conclusion , ” Schiff said .
“ And that conclusion was that a hold on aid was not only wrong , it was not only immoral , it was also illegal.
” The GAO provided a legal opinion , not a legally adjudicated decision , and the White House Office of Management and Budget disputed the finding .
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act provides the executive branch only narrow and limited discretion in spending money appropriated by Congress and signed into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
“ It violated the law , a law that we passed , so that presidents could not refuse to spend money that we allocated for the defense of others and for ourselves , ” Schiff said .
The GAO and a federal court determined that President Barack Obama violated certain laws regarding congressionally approved expenditures , The Wall Street Journal noted .
Senate Democrats spent most of Tuesday asserting that they were committed to having witnesses testify in the Senate trial .
However , before the trial began Wednesday afternoon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , threw that desire into question .
During a press conference , Schumer was asked about a possible deal to have testimony from Trump ’ s former national security adviser , John Bolton , in exchange for testimony from Hunter Biden about his lucrative board position with Burisma Holdings , the Ukrainian energy company , while his father was vice president and Obama ’ s point man on Ukraine policy .
“ That trade is not on the table , ” Schumer told reporters .
“ This isn ’ t like some fantasy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trades for witnesses.
” Viktor Shokin , then Ukraine ’ s prosecutor general , was investigating Burisma in 2016 , when Biden visited the country .
Biden boasted on camera at a 2018 event that he had threatened to withhold $ 1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine unless the government fired Shokin .
He was fired .
Biden defenders say his threat had nothing to do with the Burisma probe .
Nadler delivered a strong defense of the former vice president on the Senate floor .
“ It is true that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was widely believed to be corrupt , ” Nadler said , adding : Nadler invoked the Watergate scandal that enveloped President Richard Nixon as he talked about Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani , the former New York mayor , who pursued the president ’ s interest in investigations in Ukraine .
“ Who benefited from this scheme ?
Who sent Mr. Giuliani to Ukraine in the first place ?
” Nadler said .
“ Of course , we could rephrase that question , as the former Republican leader of the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1973 : What did the president know and when did he know it ?
”

House prosecutors claimed Wednesday that President Donald Trump is trying to “cheat” to win the 2020 election, as opening arguments from each side commenced in the Senate impeachment trial of the president.
The seven House Democrats who are impeachment managers, acting as prosecutors, made their case against Trump. They include House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of California and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York.
Presenting the other side was the president’s legal defense team, which includes White House counsel Pat Cipollone; Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow; and former independent counsel Ken Starr.
Under rules approved late Tuesday, each side has a total of 24 hours of speaking time on the Senate floor to make their case, a time allotment that may be spread over three days.
After each side presents its case, the Senate will vote on whether to call witnesses to testify. The rules are similar to those used in the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, who was acquitted.
It takes a two-thirds vote, or 67 senators, to remove a president from office.
For now, the seven House impeachment managers have up to 24 hours over three days to persuade senators to convict Trump and remove him from office.
Schiff opened the proceedings with a presentation lasting more than two hours. He used video and text messages to support his case, including 2016 campaign footage and clips from sworn witnesses at the House impeachment hearings in November.
Here are five dramatic scenes from the second full day of the Senate impeachment trial, which began shortly after 1 p.m. and continued into the night.
1. ‘Cannot Be Decided at the Ballot Box’
A July 25 phone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led to the Democrat-controlled House’s voting, without support from a single Republican, to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
During their call, Trump and Zelenskyy referred to Hunter Biden’s highly paid role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma at a time when his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine policy.
According to a White House transcript of the call released by the president, Trump asked Zelenskyy “to look into” Joe Biden’s admission that he forced the firing of a Ukrainian state prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.
Schiff told the Senate, sitting as a jury, that impeachment and removal of Trump is not about a policy disagreement.
“We are here today to consider a much more grave matter, and that is the attempt to use the power of the presidency to cheat in an election,” Schiff said.
Ahead of a presidential election in November, when Trump seeks a second term, Schiff rejected the notion that the matter should be left to voters.
“The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box,” Schiff said, adding:
For we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won. In corruptly using his office to gain a political advantage and abusing that office in such a way to jeopardize that national security and the integrity of our elections, in obstructing the investigation into his own wrongdoing, the president has shown he believes that he is above the law and scornful of constraint.
“The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., seen in a televised image, says. (Photo: Senate Television/Getty Images)
2. Resurrecting the Russia Narrative
Although one impeachment article alleges Trump was soliciting Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election, the House impeachment managers brought up Russia again.
This comes despite the conclusion by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with Russian government operatives to influence the 2016 election.
Before Schiff became chairman when Democrats reclaimed the House majority in the 2018 elections, the House Intelligence Committee reached a similar conclusion prior to release of the Mueller report.
Nevertheless, Schiff wasn’t ready to let the subject of Russia go.
“This is not the first time the president solicited foreign interference in our elections,” Schiff said. “In 2016, then-candidate Trump implored Russia to hack his opponent’s email account—something the Russian military did only hours later. Only hours later.
“When the president said, ‘Hey Russia, if you’re listening,’ they were listening. Only hours later, they hacked his opponent’s campaign.”
In 2016, Trump’s Democratic rival for the presidency, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was under FBI investigation for conducting State Department business over an unsecure private email server.
Weeks after then-FBI Director James Comey announced that he wouldn’t recommend prosecution of Clinton, despite thousands of “missing” emails, Trump talked about the issue on the campaign trail.
This also came after news that Russia was believed to have hacked the Democratic National Committee.
“If it is Russia, it’s really bad for a different reason,” Trump said at a rally on July 27, 2016. “Because it shows how little respect they have for our country when they would hack into a major party and get everything.”
“But it would be interesting to see—I will tell you this, Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That will be next.”
Later in the House impeachment managers’ arguments in the Senate, a video clip showed a Trump interview with ABC News after the Mueller investigation concluded, in which Trump was asked if he would report to the FBI if Russia or China offered him negative information on his opponent, or would take the information.
“I think maybe you do both,” Trump told the network in June. “I think you might want to listen; there isn’t anything wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said,] ‘We have information on your opponent’—oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”
Arguing on the Senate floor, Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, proclaimed of the clip: “Shocking video.”
3. Trump’s Real-Time Response
Trump apparently weighed in on Schiff’s arguments from the economic conference he was attending in Davos, Switzerland. He took the time for a short tweet, in all capital letters: “NO PRESSURE.”
“NO PRESSURE” — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2020
The president was making the point that he did not pressure Zelenskyy to conduct investigations of the Bidens and possible Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election in order to get $391 million in congressional approved military aid.
Zelenskyy also has said repeatedly that there was no pressure from Trump.
4. Citing an Actual Statute
Trump defenders and independent legal analysts frequently note that after House Democrats failed in their effort to show Trump had engaged in bribery or extortion, they had to rely on vague charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—neither of which are crimes in federal statutes.
However, Schiff pointed to a Government Accountability Office opinion last week that said Trump violated a law called the Impoundment Control Act in delaying the congressionally approved assistance to Ukraine.
The California Democrat said the president’s lawyers “pooh-poohed” the GAO’s finding.
“They are a nonpartisan organization that both parties have come to rely upon, but I’m not surprised they don’t like the conclusion of the GAO because the Defense Department warned them that this was going to be the conclusion,” Schiff said. “And that conclusion was that a hold on aid was not only wrong, it was not only immoral, it was also illegal.”
The GAO provided a legal opinion, not a legally adjudicated decision, and the White House Office of Management and Budget disputed the finding.
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act provides the executive branch only narrow and limited discretion in spending money appropriated by Congress and signed into law by the president in the budget process.
“It violated the law, a law that we passed, so that presidents could not refuse to spend money that we allocated for the defense of others and for ourselves,” Schiff said.
The GAO and a federal court determined that President Barack Obama violated certain laws regarding congressionally approved expenditures, The Wall Street Journal noted.
5. Defending the Bidens
Senate Democrats spent most of Tuesday asserting that they were committed to having witnesses testify in the Senate trial. However, before the trial began Wednesday afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., threw that desire into question.
During a press conference, Schumer was asked about a possible deal to have testimony from Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, in exchange for testimony from Hunter Biden about his lucrative board position with Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company, while his father was vice president and Obama’s point man on Ukraine policy.
“That trade is not on the table,” Schumer told reporters. “This isn’t like some fantasy football trade. Trials aren’t trades for witnesses.”
Viktor Shokin, then Ukraine’s prosecutor general, was investigating Burisma in 2016, when Biden visited the country.
Biden boasted on camera at a 2018 event that he had threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine unless the government fired Shokin. He was fired.
Biden defenders say his threat had nothing to do with the Burisma probe.
Nadler delivered a strong defense of the former vice president on the Senate floor.
“It is true that Vice President Biden helped remove Mr. Shokin, who was widely believed to be corrupt,” Nadler said, adding:
It was official policy of the United States, the European community, and others—in order to fight corruption in Ukraine—to ask that Shokin and [former Ukraine prosecutor Yuriy] Lutsenko be removed. So Vice President Biden, in fulfilling U.S. policy, pressured Ukraine to remove Shokin, not to secure some personal benefit, but to advance the official policy of the United States and its allies.
Nadler invoked the Watergate scandal that enveloped President Richard Nixon as he talked about Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, who pursued the president’s interest in investigations in Ukraine.
“Who benefited from this scheme? Who sent Mr. Giuliani to Ukraine in the first place?” Nadler said.
“Of course, we could rephrase that question, as the former Republican leader of the Senate, Howard Baker, asked it in 1973: What did the president know and when did he know it?”
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.


dailysignal--2020-01-24--7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial

House Democrats on Thursday , in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump , argued that a crime isn ’ t necessary to remove a president from office and doubled down on their defense of Joe and Hunter Biden .
The seven House Democrats who are the impeachment managers , including Reps. Adam Schiff of California and Jerry Nadler of New York , have three days , with up to 24 hours , to make their arguments .
On Saturday , the president ’ s legal defense team , which includes White House counsel Pat Cipollone ; Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former independent counsel Ken Starr , begin their counterarguments .
After each side presents its case , the Senate will vote on whether to call witnesses to testify .
The rules are similar to those used in the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton , who was acquitted .
It takes a two-thirds vote , or 67 senators , to remove a president from office .
After a deeply partisan fight over Senate trial rules on Tuesday and speaking for about two hours in Wednesday ’ s opening argument , Schiff , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lighthearted Thursday .
After Chief Justice John G. Roberts opened the day ’ s session , he said House impeachment managers have 16 hours and 42 minutes left to make their case to the Senate “ jurors.
” Schiff , the House Intelligence Committee chairman , spoke first for his team .
“ I am not sure the chief justice is fully aware of just how rare it is , how extraordinary it is , for the House members to be able to command the attention of senators sitting silently for hours—or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ Of course , it doesn ’ t hurt that the morning starts out every day with a sergeant-at-arms warning you that if you don ’ t , you will be imprisoned.
” Rep. Sylvia Garcia , D-Texas , spent much of her floor time defending former Vice President Joe Biden , a fellow Democrat , and his son Hunter Biden .
“ Common sense will tell us that this allegation against Joe Biden is false , ” Garcia said , adding , “ President Trump asked for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made-up theory that no one agreed with—no one.
” In 2016 , Joe Biden , as vice president , threatened to withhold $ 1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the Eastern European nation fired Viktor Shokin , the prosecutor investigating Burisma Holdings .
Hunter Biden held a high-paying job on the board of Burisma at a time when his father was the Obama administration ’ s point man for Ukraine .
“ Calling for Shokin ’ s replacement would , in fact , increase the chances that Burisma would be investigated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , Shokin was corrupt and not investigating allegations against Burisma .
So , Vice President Biden was calling for Shokin ’ s removal , advocating for a replacement , would actually increase the chances of Burisma ’ s investigation.
” Garcia said Trump wasn ’ t interested in the Biden allegations in 2017 or 2018 , but only became interested in 2019 , after Joe Biden became a presidential candidate .
“ Vice President Biden ’ s conduct was uniformly validated by the witnesses in the House investigation , who confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
Garcia ’ s adamant defense of the Bidens opened the door to call them as witnesses , tweeted Sen. Josh Hawley , R-Mo.
, so the Senate can get answers .
“ WOW , House managers make extended argument that Hunter Biden ’ s work w/ Burisma entirely appropriate & no conflict of interest w/ Joe Biden getting rid of prosecutor that had jurisdiction over Burisma , ” Hawley said .
“ If we call witnesses , gon na need to hear from both Bidens.
” Democrats spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first impeachment article ; specifically , abuse of power .
Nadler said Trump ’ s conduct “ captures the worst fears of our Founders.
” “ Since President George Washington took office in 1789 , no president has abused his power in this way , ” he said .
“ Let me say that again : No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections .
Prior presidents would be shocked to the core by such conduct.
” Trump has made frequent references @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way back to George Washington , albeit typically in a more favorable way .
A July 25 phone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led to the Democrat-controlled House ’ s voting , without support from a single Republican , to impeach Trump for alleged abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
During their call , Trump and Zelenskyy referred to Hunter Biden ’ s highly paid role on the board of Burisma at a time when his father , then the vice president , was the Obama administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to a White House transcript of the call released by the president , Trump asked Zelenskyy “ to look into ” Joe Biden ’ s admission that he forced the firing of a Ukrainian state prosecutor—Shokin—who was investigating Burisma .
“ This conduct is not ‘ America First , ’ ” Nadler said , taking a swipe at Trump ’ s 2016 campaign theme .
“ This conduct is Donald Trump first.
” Nadler followed with another presidential comparison .
“ This presidential stonewalling of Congress is unprecedented in the 238-year history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even President [ Richard ] Nixon to shame , ” Nadler said .
“ Taken together , the articles and the evidence conclusively establish that President Trump has placed his own personal political interests first .
He has placed them above our national security , above our free and fair elections , and above our system of checks and balances.
” Nadler later defended the history of the term “ abuse of power , ” a charge often criticized as being too vague .
“ All prior impeachment considered of high office have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nadler said , and referred to the impeachment investigations of Presidents Andrew Johnson , Nixon , and Bill Clinton .
However , even left-leaning CNN fact-checked that comment and noted that abuse of power was not one of the 11 impeachment articles against Johnson in 1868 .
The House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment against Nixon in 1974 , one of which was abuse of power .
Nixon resigned the presidency before the full House voted .
The House Judiciary Committee , then run by Republicans , voted out four articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in 1998 , which included one for abuse of power .
The full House only approved two impeachment articles , rejecting the abuse of power charge .
The Senate acquitted Clinton in a 1999 trial .
Nadler focused heavily on what he called the “ ABCs of impeachment.
” “ Abuse .
Betrayal .
Corruption .
Here are each of the core offenses the Framers [ of the Constitution ] feared most , ” Nadler said .
“ The president ’ s abuse of power , his betrayal of the national interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plainly qualify as great and dangerous offenses.
” Nadler said Trump abused his power by using the clout of his office to “ solicit and pressure Ukraine to meddle in our elections.
” Regarding betrayal , the New York Democrat said , “ He betrayed vital national interests ; specifically , our national security , by withholding diplomatic support and military aid from Ukraine even as it faced armed Russian aggression.
” Regarding corruption , Nadler said , “ President Trump ’ s intent was to corrupt our elections to his personal political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a high crime and misdemeanor that blends abuse of power , betrayal of the nation , and corruption in elections into a single , unforgivable scheme , ” he said .
“ That is why this president must be removed from office , especially before he continues his effort to corrupt our next election.
” Nadler explained that some Trump defenders note that neither article of impeachment is based on a criminal statute .
“ In a last-ditch legal defense of their client , the president ’ s lawyers argue that impeachment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to offenses against established law , that the president can not be impeached because he has not committed a crime , ” he said .
“ This view is completely wrong .
It has no support in constitutional text and structure , original meaning , congressional presence , common sense , or the consensus of credible experts .
In other words , it conflicts with every relevant consideration , ” he continued .
During his presentation , Nadler showed video from one of Trump ’ s chief advocates , Sen. Lindsey Graham , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lawyers , Alan Dershowitz .
According to several reports , Graham had left the Senate chamber before a 1999 video clip in which he was featured was displayed .
The clip showed Graham , then a member of the House , on the Senate floor , acting as a House manager in the Clinton impeachment trial , explaining what he thought a “ high crime ” was .
“ What ’ s a high crime ?
How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means ?
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s the truth .
I think that ’ s what they meant by high crimes , ” Graham said in the 1999 video .
“ Doesn ’ t even have to be a crime .
It ’ s just when you start using your office , and you ’ re acting in a way that hurts people , you have committed a high crime , ” Graham said in the clip .
“ It certainly doesn ’ t have to be a crime , ” Dershowitz said of impeachment .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty , you don ’ t need a technical crime.
” Rep. Val Demings , D-Fla. , laid out the case about an alleged conspiracy by Trump ’ s inner circle and his personal lawyer , former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani , and Giuliani associate Lev Parnas , who was indicted and recently spoke out against Trump .
She attempted to play a recording of a voicemail between Giuliani and Parnas , but the audio didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was going to say it ’ s difficult to hear , but I ’ m sure you can not hear that at all , ” Demings said .
“ According to phone records , Mr. Giuliani had a one-minute , 50-second call , ” Demings , a former Orlando , Florida , police chief said .
“ Fifteen minutes after they hung up , the records also show that Mr. Giuliani placed three short phone calls to the White House .
Shortly thereafter , the White House called Giuliani back .
Giuliani spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight minutes and 28 seconds .
“ I will just quickly note that at the time … the Intelligence Committee issued its report in mid-December , we did not know that eight-minute , 28-second call was from the White House.
” She said neither the White House nor Giuliani provided a recording or transcript of the call .
Demings said that Trump recalled Marie Yovanovitch from her job as ambassador to Ukraine out of fear that Yovanovitch , a holdover from the Obama administration , would stop the investigations of the Bidens and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yovanovitch remains employed with the State Department at no change in pay and teaches at Georgetown University .
But Demings said the ambassador ’ s removal created uncertainty among U.S. diplomats and State Department officials .
“ So , why did President Trump remove a distinguished career public servant and an anti-corruption crusader and a top diplomat in the State Department ?
” she asked rhetorically .
“ We know why .
The answer is simple .
President Trump removed Ambassador Yovanovitch because she was in the way , ” Demings said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the sham investigations that he so desperately wanted .
Investigations that would hurt former Vice President Biden and undermine the Mueller investigation into Russia election interference , investigations that would help him cheat in the 2020 election .
”

House Democrats on Thursday, in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, argued that a crime isn’t necessary to remove a president from office and doubled down on their defense of Joe and Hunter Biden.
The seven House Democrats who are the impeachment managers, including Reps. Adam Schiff of California and Jerry Nadler of New York, have three days, with up to 24 hours, to make their arguments.
On Saturday, the president’s legal defense team, which includes White House counsel Pat Cipollone; Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow; and former independent counsel Ken Starr, begin their counterarguments.
After each side presents its case, the Senate will vote on whether to call witnesses to testify. The rules are similar to those used in the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, who was acquitted.
It takes a two-thirds vote, or 67 senators, to remove a president from office.
1. Lighthearted Schiff
After a deeply partisan fight over Senate trial rules on Tuesday and speaking for about two hours in Wednesday’s opening argument, Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, was more lighthearted Thursday.
After Chief Justice John G. Roberts opened the day’s session, he said House impeachment managers have 16 hours and 42 minutes left to make their case to the Senate “jurors.”
Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, spoke first for his team.
“I am not sure the chief justice is fully aware of just how rare it is, how extraordinary it is, for the House members to be able to command the attention of senators sitting silently for hours—or even for minutes, for that matter,” he said. “Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the morning starts out every day with a sergeant-at-arms warning you that if you don’t, you will be imprisoned.”
2. Defending Joe and Hunter Biden
Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, spent much of her floor time defending former Vice President Joe Biden, a fellow Democrat, and his son Hunter Biden.
“Common sense will tell us that this allegation against Joe Biden is false,” Garcia said, adding, “President Trump asked for the investigation into Biden, based on a made-up theory that no one agreed with—no one.”
In 2016, Joe Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the Eastern European nation fired Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden held a high-paying job on the board of Burisma at a time when his father was the Obama administration’s point man for Ukraine.
Garcia said Shokin was corrupt.
“Calling for Shokin’s replacement would, in fact, increase the chances that Burisma would be investigated,” she said. “In other words, Shokin was corrupt and not investigating allegations against Burisma. So, Vice President Biden was calling for Shokin’s removal, advocating for a replacement, would actually increase the chances of Burisma’s investigation.”
Garcia said Trump wasn’t interested in the Biden allegations in 2017 or 2018, but only became interested in 2019, after Joe Biden became a presidential candidate.
“Vice President Biden’s conduct was uniformly validated by the witnesses in the House investigation, who confirmed his conduct was consistent with U.S. policy,” she said.
Garcia’s adamant defense of the Bidens opened the door to call them as witnesses, tweeted Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., so the Senate can get answers.
WOW, House managers make extended argument that Hunter Biden’s work w/ Burisma entirely appropriate & no conflict of interest w/ Joe Biden getting rid of prosecutor that had jurisdiction over Burisma. If we call witnesses, gonna need to hear from both Bidens — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) January 23, 2020
“WOW, House managers make extended argument that Hunter Biden’s work w/ Burisma entirely appropriate & no conflict of interest w/ Joe Biden getting rid of prosecutor that had jurisdiction over Burisma,” Hawley said. “If we call witnesses, gonna need to hear from both Bidens.”
3. George Washington, Nixon, and Trump
Democrats spent most of Thursday homing in on the first impeachment article; specifically, abuse of power.
Nadler said Trump’s conduct “captures the worst fears of our Founders.”
“Since President George Washington took office in 1789, no president has abused his power in this way,” he said. “Let me say that again: No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections. Prior presidents would be shocked to the core by such conduct.”
Trump has made frequent references to his record, reaching all the way back to George Washington, albeit typically in a more favorable way.
A July 25 phone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led to the Democrat-controlled House’s voting, without support from a single Republican, to impeach Trump for alleged abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
During their call, Trump and Zelenskyy referred to Hunter Biden’s highly paid role on the board of Burisma at a time when his father, then the vice president, was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine policy.
According to a White House transcript of the call released by the president, Trump asked Zelenskyy “to look into” Joe Biden’s admission that he forced the firing of a Ukrainian state prosecutor—Shokin—who was investigating Burisma.
“This conduct is not ‘America First,’” Nadler said, taking a swipe at Trump’s 2016 campaign theme. “This conduct is Donald Trump first.”
Nadler followed with another presidential comparison.
“This presidential stonewalling of Congress is unprecedented in the 238-year history of our constitutional republic. It puts even President [Richard] Nixon to shame,” Nadler said. “Taken together, the articles and the evidence conclusively establish that President Trump has placed his own personal political interests first. He has placed them above our national security, above our free and fair elections, and above our system of checks and balances.”
4. Abuse of Power and Prior Impeachments
Nadler later defended the history of the term “abuse of power,” a charge often criticized as being too vague.
“All prior impeachment considered of high office have all included abuse of power,” Nadler said, and referred to the impeachment investigations of Presidents Andrew Johnson, Nixon, and Bill Clinton.
However, even left-leaning CNN fact-checked that comment and noted that abuse of power was not one of the 11 impeachment articles against Johnson in 1868. The House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment against Nixon in 1974, one of which was abuse of power. Nixon resigned the presidency before the full House voted.
The House Judiciary Committee, then run by Republicans, voted out four articles of impeachment against Clinton, a Democrat, in 1998, which included one for abuse of power. The full House only approved two impeachment articles, rejecting the abuse of power charge. The Senate acquitted Clinton in a 1999 trial.
5. ABCs of Impeachment
Nadler focused heavily on what he called the “ABCs of impeachment.”
“Abuse. Betrayal. Corruption. Here are each of the core offenses the Framers [of the Constitution] feared most,” Nadler said. “The president’s abuse of power, his betrayal of the national interest, and his corruption of our elections plainly qualify as great and dangerous offenses.”
Nadler said Trump abused his power by using the clout of his office to “solicit and pressure Ukraine to meddle in our elections.”
Regarding betrayal, the New York Democrat said, “He betrayed vital national interests; specifically, our national security, by withholding diplomatic support and military aid from Ukraine even as it faced armed Russian aggression.”
Regarding corruption, Nadler said, “President Trump’s intent was to corrupt our elections to his personal political benefit.”
“Article One thus charges a high crime and misdemeanor that blends abuse of power, betrayal of the nation, and corruption in elections into a single, unforgivable scheme,” he said. “That is why this president must be removed from office, especially before he continues his effort to corrupt our next election.”
6. Graham and Dershowitz Videos
Nadler explained that some Trump defenders note that neither article of impeachment is based on a criminal statute.
“In a last-ditch legal defense of their client, the president’s lawyers argue that impeachment and removal are subject to statutory crimes or to offenses against established law, that the president cannot be impeached because he has not committed a crime,” he said.
“This view is completely wrong. It has no support in constitutional text and structure, original meaning, congressional presence, common sense, or the consensus of credible experts. In other words, it conflicts with every relevant consideration,” he continued.
During his presentation, Nadler showed video from one of Trump’s chief advocates, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and one of the president’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz.
According to several reports, Graham had left the Senate chamber before a 1999 video clip in which he was featured was displayed.
The clip showed Graham, then a member of the House, on the Senate floor, acting as a House manager in the Clinton impeachment trial, explaining what he thought a “high crime” was.
“What’s a high crime? How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means? It’s not very scholarly, but I think it’s the truth. I think that’s what they meant by high crimes,” Graham said in the 1999 video. “Doesn’t even have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office, and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you have committed a high crime,” Graham said in the clip.
Nadler also showed a clip of Dershowitz.
“It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime,” Dershowitz said of impeachment. “If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.”
7. Phone Calls, Ambassador’s Recall
Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., laid out the case about an alleged conspiracy by Trump’s inner circle and his personal lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, who was indicted and recently spoke out against Trump.
She attempted to play a recording of a voicemail between Giuliani and Parnas, but the audio didn’t work.
“Well, I was going to say it’s difficult to hear, but I’m sure you cannot hear that at all,” Demings said.
“According to phone records, Mr. Giuliani had a one-minute, 50-second call,” Demings, a former Orlando, Florida, police chief said. “Fifteen minutes after they hung up, the records also show that Mr. Giuliani placed three short phone calls to the White House. Shortly thereafter, the White House called Giuliani back. Giuliani spoke with someone at the White House for eight minutes and 28 seconds.
“I will just quickly note that at the time … the Intelligence Committee issued its report in mid-December, we did not know that eight-minute, 28-second call was from the White House.”
She said neither the White House nor Giuliani provided a recording or transcript of the call.
Demings said that Trump recalled Marie Yovanovitch from her job as ambassador to Ukraine out of fear that Yovanovitch, a holdover from the Obama administration, would stop the investigations of the Bidens and into suspected Ukraine election meddling in 2016.
Yovanovitch remains employed with the State Department at no change in pay and teaches at Georgetown University. But Demings said the ambassador’s removal created uncertainty among U.S. diplomats and State Department officials.
“So, why did President Trump remove a distinguished career public servant and an anti-corruption crusader and a top diplomat in the State Department?” she asked rhetorically.
“We know why. The answer is simple. President Trump removed Ambassador Yovanovitch because she was in the way,” Demings said. “She was in the way of the sham investigations that he so desperately wanted. Investigations that would hurt former Vice President Biden and undermine the Mueller investigation into Russia election interference, investigations that would help him cheat in the 2020 election.”