dailysignal--2020-01-07--Sen. Cruz: Impeachment Is a ‘1-Sided Show Trial,’ ‘Not Driven by Facts’

President Donald Trump is only the third president to be impeached because impeachment is a rarely used tool that the Founders intended to be a serious and fair process .
Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , says he is concerned that Trump hasn ’ t gotten the due process he deserves .
I spoke with him about the impeachment process and how it will likely play out in the Senate .
Listen to the podcast or read a lightly edited transcript below .
The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts .
If you like what you hear , please leave a review .
You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [ email protected ] .
Enjoy the show !
Rachel del Guidice : We are joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas .
Senator Cruz , thank you so much for being with us today .
Sen. Ted Cruz : It ’ s great to be here .
del Guidice : Even though it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no secret that impeachment will continue to overtake the news and even Congress .
Even though this is something we ’ ve been hearing about for actually four years now , what should Americans know about this impeachment that maybe they ’ re not hearing on mainstream media ?
Cruz : What we saw in the House of Representatives was really a sad display .
It was a one-sided show trial .
It was the culmination of three years of hatred and partisan venom .
House Democrats had been calling to impeach the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This impeachment was not driven by facts .
It was not driven by evidence .
It was driven by partisan rage because the far left hates the president .
What we saw in the House was a one-sided show trial where the White House was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses , and Republicans were denied the opportunity to call witnesses .
Even so , even after setting up a kangaroo court of only one-sided prosecution witnesses , House Democrats ’ case fell apart .
Compare what the Democrats were saying in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting on .
In November , you had House Democrats all saying , “ Bribery , bribery , bribery .
We ’ re going to prove bribery .
We ’ re going to prove obstruction of justice .
We ’ re going to prove all these crimes , extortion.
” Now look , bribery , obstruction of justice , extortion , those are serious crimes .
Then , after they actually heard evidence , the evidence didn ’ t back up any of that .
Everything they alleged , they got to and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t. ” And there ’ s a reason .
All of those are federal crimes .
Federal crimes have things called elements , elements of the crime .
If you ’ re a prosecutor , and you ’ re proving a crime , you ’ ve got to prove the elements .
The testimony came in and they couldn ’ t prove the elements of a crime .
For example , bribery requires agreement .
Testimony was undisputed .
Ukraine didn ’ t even know this was going on .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clear the other side doesn ’ t even know about it .
The Democrats ’ problem was everything they ’ d promised collapsed , but they hated the president and wanted to impeach him anyway .
They voted on articles of impeachment that on their face don ’ t meet the constitutional standards .
The Constitution specifies what has to be proven for impeachment of a president , that is treason , bribery , or other high crimes and misdemeanors .
On its face , the House articles of impeachment don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the good news .
In the Senate , we ’ re going to see a very , very different proceeding .
We ’ re going to see a fair trial in the Senate .
What is a fair trial ?
It means both sides are going to have the chance to present their case .
We ’ re going to allow the House managers to present their case .
They can argue whatever they want to argue .
They can rely on whatever evidence they can .
But you better believe we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ Donald ] Trump to present his case .
del Guidice : He wasn ’ t able to do that in the House .
Cruz : He wasn ’ t able to do that .
We ’ re going to respect due process .
We ’ re going to give the president an opportunity to present a full defense on the merits , on the facts .
And then at the end of that process , this entire charade is going to be thrown out .
Why is it going to be thrown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be thrown out because it doesn ’ t meet the constitutional standards .
On its face , the House didn ’ t even allege high crimes or misdemeanor .
The result of the fair trial , if hearing both sides , will be that the case will be thrown out at the end of the trial .
del Guidice : You were just recently at The Heritage Foundation and you said something really interesting that a lot of people aren ’ t talking about .
You said that this impeachment cycle that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s now being used as a political tactic and really nothing else .
Can you talk to us about that ?
Cruz : Sure .
This is something actually the Framers of our Constitution … worried about a great deal .
They didn ’ t want to see impeachment just used as a political weapon .
At Heritage I talked at considerable length [ about ] some of the constitutional history of where the language of treason , bribery , or other high crimes and misdemeanors came from .
There were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , going into the Convention , the language for impeachment of the president just said treason or bribery .
George Mason , one of the most well-respected of the Framers , stood up and he made a motion to add the word “ maladministration ” so that the phrase would have read “ treason , bribery , or maladministration.
” James Madison , widely recognized as the Father of the Constitution , stood up and objected to Mason ’ s suggestion .
He said , “ This is a bad idea because maladministration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad and capacious term.
” del Guidice : It could mean anything .
Cruz : He said , “ What it would mean is any time Congress disagreed with the president , they could impeach the president , so let ’ s not put maladministration in there because this shouldn ’ t be a tool just when you have a political or policy disagreement with the president.
” Madison came back and said , “ How about instead of maladministration , let ’ s add ‘ other high crimes and misdemeanors . '
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up doing .
The consequence of the Democrats doing this [ is ] , if this is the standard for the House of Representatives , every president from now to eternity will be impeached any time the House is of an opposing party .
The media will never point this out .
Barack Obama was president for eight years .
I disagreed with Barack Obama profoundly .
I think he advocated , I think he implemented policies that were enormously damaging to this country , that hurt Americans , that hurt Texans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Obama , I didn ’ t advocate impeaching Obama .
I wasn ’ t out there arguing we should impeach Obama .
Why ?
Because if you disagree with someone on policy or politics , the Constitution has a remedy for that .
You go and win at the ballot box .
You go make the case to the American people that the policies this guy is implementing are bad policy .
Here ’ s the Democrats ’ problem .
We ’ ve got a roaring economy .
We ’ ve got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We got the lowest African American unemployment ever recorded .
We had the lowest Hispanic unemployment ever recorded .
They can ’ t make the case on policy .
They ’ re looking at it and saying , “ Well , if we actually have to argue on substance , we lose , so let ’ s impeach him.
” That ’ s an abuse of the Constitution .
Sadly , it is where today ’ s extreme , radical Democratic Party is .
del Guidice : You ’ ve seen arguments on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I saw an article last week saying that , “ Oh , this Trump impeachment is similar to the Clinton impeachment.
” They ’ re two very different situations .
Can you detail that real quickly for us ?
Cruz : Sure .
Most fundamentally , Bill Clinton was impeached for committing high crimes and misdemeanor .
In particular , he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice .
It ’ s quite clear that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors .
They ’ re felonies .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or I commit perjury or obstruction of justice , we could face years in prison .
The House Democrats haven ’ t alleged that , and it ’ s interesting if you contrast .
There are two articles that the House Democrats voted on .
No .
1 , where they were threatening bribery , extortion , they didn ’ t impeach on any of that .
They made something up called abuse of power and their argument is they don ’ t have to allege any violation of criminal law .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal law whatsoever was violated .
That they don ’ t have to argue , in their view of the world , that Donald Trump had a speeding ticket .
They just disagree with his foreign policy and how he implements it .
That ’ s Article 1 .
Let me tell you , as weak as Article 1 is , Article 2 is orders of magnitude weaker .
Why is that ?
Because Article 2 is obstruction , but it ’ s not obstruction of justice .
It ’ s obstruction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting , because for months Democrats have been saying that Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice—obstruction of justice is a high crime or misdemeanor—but the facts don ’ t back it up .
They couldn ’ t meet the elements and prove obstruction of justice .
They backed away , and here ’ s their argument .
Their argument is because administration officials claimed various forms of privilege , primarily executive privilege , that the mere act of claiming a legal privilege is obstruction of Congress , and it is a high crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a ludicrous , laughable standard .
If that were a standard , and this is not hyperbole , every single one of the 45 presidents we ’ ve had would have committed high crimes and misdemeanors that can be impeached .
Going back to George Washington , every president has asserted executive privilege and other privileges .
Let ’ s dive down a little bit more because I want to show just how ridiculous this is .
Let ’ s take the case of John Bolton .
John Bolton was the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year and a half .
House Democrats wanted John Bolton to testify in the House .
John Bolton did something I think very clever and very wise .
Through his lawyer , he went to federal district court in D.C. and he went to the judge and he said , “ Judge , I ’ ve got a demand from the House of Representatives to testify , and I ’ ve been instructed by the White House not to testify , based on executive privilege.
” And John Bolton said— del Guidice : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Judge , you tell me what to do .
I ’ ll follow the law .
I ’ ve got two conflicting legal obligations here , so I ’ m going to you , judge , asking for what is the right answer under the law.
” You know what House Democrats did ?
del Guidice : What did they do ?
Cruz : They said , “ Never mind.
” They literally just said , “ Never mind .
OK , we ’ ll go away.
” “ The fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an answer , ” they said , “ that ’ s obstruction , going to court.
” Cruz : Contrast that say to the Nixon case .
Nixon , there was a grand jury subpoena for the White House tapes .
Remember , Richard Nixon had a secret tape-recording device in the Oval Office , very stupid , by the way , bad , bad idea , but he did .
Grand jury issued a subpoena .
That was litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court .
[ The ] U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nixon White House , “ Handover those tapes.
” Nixon resigned , I think , two days later .
That ’ s actually how these issues are typically resolved .
If the House wants to get testimony , they could issue a subpoena .
They can go litigate it .
They can take it to the court .
They can take it to the Supreme Court .
Their position is , “ Nope , we ’ re not going to do any of that .
Any president who asserts any privilege , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It is difficult to find a more ludicrous argument and support of impeachment .
del Guidice : I think you ’ re right that we ’ re going to keep seeing this unless we reel this in somehow .
Sen. Cruz , thank you so much for joining us on The Daily Signal Podcast .
Cruz : Always a pleasure , thank you .
del Guidice : Thank you so much .

President Donald Trump is only the third president to be impeached because impeachment is a rarely used tool that the Founders intended to be a serious and fair process. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, says he is concerned that Trump hasn’t gotten the due process he deserves. I spoke with him about the impeachment process and how it will likely play out in the Senate. Listen to the podcast or read a lightly edited transcript below.
The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
Rachel del Guidice: We are joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. Senator Cruz, thank you so much for being with us today.
Sen. Ted Cruz: It’s great to be here.
del Guidice: Even though it’s a new year, it’s no secret that impeachment will continue to overtake the news and even Congress. Even though this is something we’ve been hearing about for actually four years now, what should Americans know about this impeachment that maybe they’re not hearing on mainstream media?
Cruz: What we saw in the House of Representatives was really a sad display. It was a one-sided show trial. It was the culmination of three years of hatred and partisan venom.
House Democrats had been calling to impeach the president literally since Election Day 2016. This impeachment was not driven by facts. It was not driven by evidence. It was driven by partisan rage because the far left hates the president.
What we saw in the House was a one-sided show trial where the White House was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and Republicans were denied the opportunity to call witnesses. Even so, even after setting up a kangaroo court of only one-sided prosecution witnesses, House Democrats’ case fell apart.
Compare what the Democrats were saying in November to the ridiculous articles they ended up voting on. In November, you had House Democrats all saying, “Bribery, bribery, bribery. We’re going to prove bribery. We’re going to prove obstruction of justice. We’re going to prove all these crimes, extortion.”
Now look, bribery, obstruction of justice, extortion, those are serious crimes. Then, after they actually heard evidence, the evidence didn’t back up any of that. Everything they alleged, they got to and said, “Well, we can’t.” And there’s a reason. All of those are federal crimes. Federal crimes have things called elements, elements of the crime.
If you’re a prosecutor, and you’re proving a crime, you’ve got to prove the elements. The testimony came in and they couldn’t prove the elements of a crime. For example, bribery requires agreement. Testimony was undisputed. Ukraine didn’t even know this was going on. You can’t have agreement if the testimony is clear the other side doesn’t even know about it.
The Democrats’ problem was everything they’d promised collapsed, but they hated the president and wanted to impeach him anyway. They voted on articles of impeachment that on their face don’t meet the constitutional standards.
The Constitution specifies what has to be proven for impeachment of a president, that is treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. On its face, the House articles of impeachment don’t meet that.
Now here’s the good news. In the Senate, we’re going to see a very, very different proceeding. We’re going to see a fair trial in the Senate.
What is a fair trial? It means both sides are going to have the chance to present their case. We’re going to allow the House managers to present their case. They can argue whatever they want to argue. They can rely on whatever evidence they can. But you better believe we’re also going to allow President [Donald] Trump to present his case.
del Guidice: He wasn’t able to do that in the House.
Cruz: He wasn’t able to do that.
We’re going to respect due process. We’re going to give the president an opportunity to present a full defense on the merits, on the facts. And then at the end of that process, this entire charade is going to be thrown out.
Why is it going to be thrown out? It’s going to be thrown out because it doesn’t meet the constitutional standards. On its face, the House didn’t even allege high crimes or misdemeanor. The result of the fair trial, if hearing both sides, will be that the case will be thrown out at the end of the trial.
del Guidice: You were just recently at The Heritage Foundation and you said something really interesting that a lot of people aren’t talking about. You said that this impeachment cycle that we’re seeing with President Trump, it’s now being used as a political tactic and really nothing else. Can you talk to us about that?
Cruz: Sure. This is something actually the Framers of our Constitution … worried about a great deal. They didn’t want to see impeachment just used as a political weapon.
At Heritage I talked at considerable length [about] some of the constitutional history of where the language of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors came from. There were a couple of early iterations. Then, going into the Convention, the language for impeachment of the president just said treason or bribery.
George Mason, one of the most well-respected of the Framers, stood up and he made a motion to add the word “maladministration” so that the phrase would have read “treason, bribery, or maladministration.” James Madison, widely recognized as the Father of the Constitution, stood up and objected to Mason’s suggestion. He said, “This is a bad idea because maladministration is such a general, such a broad and capacious term.”
del Guidice: It could mean anything.
Cruz: He said, “What it would mean is any time Congress disagreed with the president, they could impeach the president, so let’s not put maladministration in there because this shouldn’t be a tool just when you have a political or policy disagreement with the president.”
Madison came back and said, “How about instead of maladministration, let’s add ‘other high crimes and misdemeanors.'” That’s what they ended up doing.
The consequence of the Democrats doing this [is], if this is the standard for the House of Representatives, every president from now to eternity will be impeached any time the House is of an opposing party.
The media will never point this out. Barack Obama was president for eight years. I disagreed with Barack Obama profoundly. I think he advocated, I think he implemented policies that were enormously damaging to this country, that hurt Americans, that hurt Texans.
Yet, despite my very strong disagreements with Obama, I didn’t advocate impeaching Obama. I wasn’t out there arguing we should impeach Obama. Why? Because if you disagree with someone on policy or politics, the Constitution has a remedy for that. You go and win at the ballot box. You go make the case to the American people that the policies this guy is implementing are bad policy.
Here’s the Democrats’ problem. We’ve got a roaring economy. We’ve got the lowest unemployment in 50 years. We got the lowest African American unemployment ever recorded. We had the lowest Hispanic unemployment ever recorded.
They can’t make the case on policy. They’re looking at it and saying, “Well, if we actually have to argue on substance, we lose, so let’s impeach him.” That’s an abuse of the Constitution. Sadly, it is where today’s extreme, radical Democratic Party is.
del Guidice: You’ve seen arguments on Twitter and even mainstream news outlets. I saw an article last week saying that, “Oh, this Trump impeachment is similar to the Clinton impeachment.” They’re two very different situations. Can you detail that real quickly for us?
Cruz: Sure. Most fundamentally, Bill Clinton was impeached for committing high crimes and misdemeanor. In particular, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. It’s quite clear that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors. They’re felonies. They’re serious felonies. If you or I commit perjury or obstruction of justice, we could face years in prison.
The House Democrats haven’t alleged that, and it’s interesting if you contrast. There are two articles that the House Democrats voted on. No. 1, where they were threatening bribery, extortion, they didn’t impeach on any of that. They made something up called abuse of power and their argument is they don’t have to allege any violation of criminal law. They don’t have to allege any federal law whatsoever was violated. That they don’t have to argue, in their view of the world, that Donald Trump had a speeding ticket. They just disagree with his foreign policy and how he implements it. That’s Article 1.
Let me tell you, as weak as Article 1 is, Article 2 is orders of magnitude weaker. Why is that? Because Article 2 is obstruction, but it’s not obstruction of justice. It’s obstruction of Congress.
Now, it’s interesting, because for months Democrats have been saying that Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice—obstruction of justice is a high crime or misdemeanor—but the facts don’t back it up. They couldn’t meet the elements and prove obstruction of justice.
They backed away, and here’s their argument. Their argument is because administration officials claimed various forms of privilege, primarily executive privilege, that the mere act of claiming a legal privilege is obstruction of Congress, and it is a high crime or misdemeanor that is impeachable. That is a ludicrous, laughable standard.
If that were a standard, and this is not hyperbole, every single one of the 45 presidents we’ve had would have committed high crimes and misdemeanors that can be impeached. Going back to George Washington, every president has asserted executive privilege and other privileges.
Let’s dive down a little bit more because I want to show just how ridiculous this is. Let’s take the case of John Bolton.
John Bolton was the national security adviser to President Trump for a year and a half. House Democrats wanted John Bolton to testify in the House. John Bolton did something I think very clever and very wise. Through his lawyer, he went to federal district court in D.C. and he went to the judge and he said, “Judge, I’ve got a demand from the House of Representatives to testify, and I’ve been instructed by the White House not to testify, based on executive privilege.” And John Bolton said—
del Guidice: What do I do?
Cruz: “Judge, you tell me what to do. I’ll follow the law. I’ve got two conflicting legal obligations here, so I’m going to you, judge, asking for what is the right answer under the law.”
You know what House Democrats did?
del Guidice: What did they do?
Cruz: They said, “Never mind.” They literally just said, “Never mind. OK, we’ll go away.”
“The fact that you went to court to ask for an answer,” they said, “that’s obstruction, going to court.”
del Guidice: Unbelievable.
Cruz: Contrast that say to the Nixon case. Nixon, there was a grand jury subpoena for the White House tapes. Remember, Richard Nixon had a secret tape-recording device in the Oval Office, very stupid, by the way, bad, bad idea, but he did.
Grand jury issued a subpoena. That was litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. [The] U.S. Supreme Court issued an order to the Nixon White House, “Handover those tapes.” Nixon resigned, I think, two days later.
That’s actually how these issues are typically resolved. If the House wants to get testimony, they could issue a subpoena. They can go litigate it. They can take it to the court. They can take it to the Supreme Court. Their position is, “Nope, we’re not going to do any of that. Any president who asserts any privilege, that is “obstruction of Congress and impeachable.” It is difficult to find a more ludicrous argument and support of impeachment.
del Guidice: I think you’re right that we’re going to keep seeing this unless we reel this in somehow. Sen. Cruz, thank you so much for joining us on The Daily Signal Podcast.
Cruz: Always a pleasure, thank you.
del Guidice: Thank you so much.


dailysignal--2020-01-07--Left’s Impeachment Drive Fueled by ‘Rage Instead of Reason,’ Says ‘Witch Hunt’ Author Gregg Jarrett

Impeachment is supposed to be a serious , deliberative process , but the Trump impeachment has been anything but .
Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett has a new book in which he unpacks the effort to catch President Donald Trump by any means .
Listen to the podcast or read a lightly edited transcript below .
Virginia Allen : I ’ m joined on The Daily Signal Podcast by Gregg Jarrett , Fox News legal analyst and New York Times bestselling author .
Gregg , thank you so much for joining me .
Gregg Jarrett : My pleasure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ve been very vocal about the left ’ s constant attacks on President [ Donald ] Trump .
You actually wrote a book titled “ Witch Hunt , ” which we ’ ll address in just a moment here , but why do you think that the left has been so vehemently against President Trump since even before he was elected ?
Jarrett : Hatred and blinding bias that has driven them to accuse him of the most noxious crime imaginable , a treasonous conspiracy with Russia , that proved to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down by the Mueller report , and even further evidence of it in the inspector general ’ s report .
It has been driving the impeachment of the president .
And it was very revealing that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said recently , in a forum caught on videotape , that she ’ d been trying to do this for two and a half years .
That tells you everything you need to know .
They didn ’ t care whether they had a valid reason or not .
They were determined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presidency , and drive him from office by hook or by crook .
They chose the latter .
Allen : So , now , the president has been impeached by the House .
What are those key differences , though , between the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and President Lyndon B. Johnson , and now what we ’ re seeing with President Donald Trump ?
Look , in the Bill Clinton case , the most recent one in 1998- ’ 99 , there was an extensive investigation by an independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , went on for two years .
He interviewed hundreds of witnesses , examined millions of documents .
He identified 11 felony offenses by President Bill Clinton .
Here , in the case of Donald Trump , there are no felony offenses identified , there are no misdemeanors identified .
Read through the articles of impeachment .
There are no crimes stated .
And this wasn ’ t an exhaustive investigation by an independent counsel , no .
This was a largely secret process by [ Rep. ] Adam Schiff and the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And his only witnesses were offering opinion , speculation , and multiple hearsay .
There was only one fact witness who actually spoke to Donald Trump who recounted how the president said , “ I want nothing .
I want no quid pro quo.
” So , there ’ s no direct evidence that the president did anything wrong that constitutes an impeachable offense .
This is rage instead of reason .
There is no clear and convincing evidence , which is the impeachment standard .
This is exactly what the Framers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clause would be weaponized for partisan purposes .
They feared that an opposing party who disliked a particular president would seek to impeach him for purely political reasons .
And that ’ s what ’ s happened .
Allen : Are you worried about the future ?
I mean , now that we have seen impeachment be used as this political weapon , do you think it ’ s likely that this is going to be a pattern that we see in future generations ?
Jarrett : Absolutely .
This is a dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misconduct by a president will now be immediately branded an impeachable offense , because Democrats in the House , Speaker Nancy Pelosi in particular , has set the standard so low that anything is impeachable .
When you read Article 1 [ of ] impeachment , it ’ s entitled “ Abuse of Power , ” which is this wonderfully amorphous phrase that can mean anything .
It ’ s found nowhere in the Constitution , and it ’ s exactly what the Framers rejected .
There was great debate and consideration to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitutional Convention as a vehicle for impeachment .
It was debated and deliberately rejected , because the Framers—and you can read the debate as it ’ s recounted—said it ’ s too vague .
It ’ s too ambiguous .
It could mean anything , and it would be used as a political cudgel by an opposing party , so they rejected it .
And they arrived at a pretty clear standard : Treason , bribery , high crimes , and misdemeanors—stated nowhere in these articles of impeachment against Trump .
Allen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment about your book , “ Witch Hunt : The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History.
” Why did you decide to write the book ?
Jarrett : Well , I wrote the first book , it came out a year and a half ago , called “ The Russia Hoax.
” And it told the story of how powerful , unelected officials operating in the shadows of secrecy created the greatest mass delusion in American political history .
But since that book came out , a wealth of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the original inspector general ’ s report .
Now , the second inspector general ’ s report , Robert Mueller ’ s report .
We received the redacted FISA warrant applications to spy .
The story of Rod Rosenstein ’ s attempted coup to recruit Cabinet members to evict the president .
All of this came to light .
And so , it deserved another book that was updated with more information .
Allen : When you think about sitting down with your grandchildren or future generations in years to come and talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would you want them to know ?
Jarrett : Well , I would want them to know that this was a period in American history where democracy was at the precipice , where a group of people decided that they didn ’ t like the electoral results , and sought to undo those results , and to drive a duly elected president from office .
And that the people became outraged over it and stopped it .
And that , in the end , justice prevailed .
The only remedy for a lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cure for lawlessness is justice .
And I think you see now , first with the inspector general report and the attorney general , William Barr , and his U.S. attorney , John Durham , that they are dedicated to getting to the bottom of the Russia hoax .
How did , and why did , the FBI launch its investigation without any credible evidence ?
Why did they lie to a FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign and deceive them , concealing exculpatory evidence ?
I think Barr and Durham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel fairly confident that , in the end , the reckoning awaits , and people will be held accountable .
Allen : They say that history repeats itself .
What would you want to tell the next generation … [ so ] that we don ’ t repeat these mistakes that we ’ ve made ?
Jarrett : Don ’ t always trust your government , that they ’ re doing the right thing .
Government is only as good as the people in government serving the public ’ s need .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frailties that afflict all of us .
They don ’ t just make mistakes , but some of them act out of malice .
And the people that we entrust to uphold the law , in this particular case , broke the law , in my judgment .
And so , don ’ t automatically assume that the government is acting honestly .
And we must always remain vigilant in a democracy .
Allen : Gregg , we really appreciate your constant legal analysis on Fox and the work that you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your work , find out more about your books ?
Jarrett : Well , my latest book , “ Witch Hunt : The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History ” is available in bookstores everywhere .
You can buy it online , Amazon.com , Barnesandnoble.com .
I write weekly columns , sometimes two or three or four columns a week , for FoxNews.com .
You can also check out my website , thegreggjarrett.com .
Check out Twitter @ GreggJarrett .
So , there ’ s lots of ways to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allen : Great .
Thank you so much for your time today , we really appreciate it .

Impeachment is supposed to be a serious, deliberative process, but the Trump impeachment has been anything but. Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett has a new book in which he unpacks the effort to catch President Donald Trump by any means. Listen to the podcast or read a lightly edited transcript below.
Virginia Allen: I’m joined on The Daily Signal Podcast by Gregg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst and New York Times bestselling author. Gregg, thank you so much for joining me.
Gregg Jarrett: My pleasure to be here.
Allen: Now, you’ve been very vocal about the left’s constant attacks on President [Donald] Trump. You actually wrote a book titled “Witch Hunt,” which we’ll address in just a moment here, but why do you think that the left has been so vehemently against President Trump since even before he was elected?
Jarrett: Hatred and blinding bias that has driven them to accuse him of the most noxious crime imaginable, a treasonous conspiracy with Russia, that proved to be nothing more than a hoax knocked down by the Mueller report, and even further evidence of it in the inspector general’s report. It has been driving the impeachment of the president.
And it was very revealing that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said recently, in a forum caught on videotape, that she’d been trying to do this for two and a half years.
That tells you everything you need to know. They didn’t care whether they had a valid reason or not. They were determined to undo the election result, damage Trump’s presidency, and drive him from office by hook or by crook. They chose the latter.
Allen: So, now, the president has been impeached by the House. What are those key differences, though, between the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and President Andrew Johnson, and now what we’re seeing with President Donald Trump?
Jarrett: Look, in the Bill Clinton case, the most recent one in 1998-’99, there was an extensive investigation by an independent counsel by the name of Ken Starr, went on for two years. He interviewed hundreds of witnesses, examined millions of documents. He identified 11 felony offenses by President Bill Clinton.
Here, in the case of Donald Trump, there are no felony offenses identified, there are no misdemeanors identified. Read through the articles of impeachment. There are no crimes stated. And this wasn’t an exhaustive investigation by an independent counsel, no. This was a largely secret process by [Rep.] Adam Schiff and the House over the course of several weeks. And his only witnesses were offering opinion, speculation, and multiple hearsay.
There was only one fact witness who actually spoke to Donald Trump who recounted how the president said, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.” So, there’s no direct evidence that the president did anything wrong that constitutes an impeachable offense.
This is rage instead of reason. There is no clear and convincing evidence, which is the impeachment standard.
This is exactly what the Framers of our Constitution feared, that the impeachment clause would be weaponized for partisan purposes. They feared that an opposing party who disliked a particular president would seek to impeach him for purely political reasons. And that’s what’s happened.
Allen: Are you worried about the future? I mean, now that we have seen impeachment be used as this political weapon, do you think it’s likely that this is going to be a pattern that we see in future generations?
Jarrett: Absolutely. This is a dangerous new standard. Every perceived slight or misconduct by a president will now be immediately branded an impeachable offense, because Democrats in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi in particular, has set the standard so low that anything is impeachable.
When you read Article 1 [of] impeachment, it’s entitled “Abuse of Power,” which is this wonderfully amorphous phrase that can mean anything. It’s found nowhere in the Constitution, and it’s exactly what the Framers rejected.
There was great debate and consideration to use the term “maladministration” during the Constitutional Convention as a vehicle for impeachment. It was debated and deliberately rejected, because the Framers—and you can read the debate as it’s recounted—said it’s too vague. It’s too ambiguous. It could mean anything, and it would be used as a political cudgel by an opposing party, so they rejected it.
And they arrived at a pretty clear standard: Treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors—stated nowhere in these articles of impeachment against Trump.
Allen: Let’s talk for a moment about your book, “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History.” Why did you decide to write the book?
Jarrett: Well, I wrote the first book, it came out a year and a half ago, called “The Russia Hoax.” And it told the story of how powerful, unelected officials operating in the shadows of secrecy created the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
But since that book came out, a wealth of new information and evidence has emerged from the original inspector general’s report. Now, the second inspector general’s report, Robert Mueller’s report. We received the redacted FISA warrant applications to spy. The story of Rod Rosenstein’s attempted coup to recruit Cabinet members to evict the president.
All of this came to light. And so, it deserved another book that was updated with more information.
Allen: When you think about sitting down with your grandchildren or future generations in years to come and talking about this time in history, what would you want them to know?
Jarrett: Well, I would want them to know that this was a period in American history where democracy was at the precipice, where a group of people decided that they didn’t like the electoral results, and sought to undo those results, and to drive a duly elected president from office. And that the people became outraged over it and stopped it. And that, in the end, justice prevailed.
The only remedy for a lie is the truth. And the only cure for lawlessness is justice. And I think you see now, first with the inspector general report and the attorney general, William Barr, and his U.S. attorney, John Durham, that they are dedicated to getting to the bottom of the Russia hoax.
How did, and why did, the FBI launch its investigation without any credible evidence? Why did they lie to a FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign and deceive them, concealing exculpatory evidence? I think Barr and Durham are looking into this, and I feel fairly confident that, in the end, the reckoning awaits, and people will be held accountable.
Allen: They say that history repeats itself. What would you want to tell the next generation … [so] that we don’t repeat these mistakes that we’ve made?
Jarrett: Don’t always trust your government, that they’re doing the right thing. Government is only as good as the people in government serving the public’s need. And they are susceptible to the same human frailties that afflict all of us.
They don’t just make mistakes, but some of them act out of malice. And the people that we entrust to uphold the law, in this particular case, broke the law, in my judgment. And so, don’t automatically assume that the government is acting honestly. And we must always remain vigilant in a democracy.
Allen: Gregg, we really appreciate your constant legal analysis on Fox and the work that you’re doing. How can our listeners follow your work, find out more about your books?
Jarrett: Well, my latest book, “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History” is available in bookstores everywhere. You can buy it online, Amazon.com, Barnesandnoble.com.
I write weekly columns, sometimes two or three or four columns a week, for FoxNews.com. You can also check out my website, thegreggjarrett.com. Check out Twitter @GreggJarrett. So, there’s lots of ways to communicate and follow what I do.
Allen: Great. Thank you so much for your time today, we really appreciate it.
Jarrett: My pleasure. Thanks.
Note: This transcript was edited after initial publication.


dailysignal--2020-01-06--At the Golden Globes, Ricky Gervais Exposed Hollywood’s ‘Woke’ Culture

At the annual Golden Globes , an awards show for both movies and television , on Sunday night , host comedian Ricky Gervais was actually funny , lampooning Hollywood in general and its “ woke ” culture in particular .
“ Let ’ s have a laugh at your expense , ” Gervais said in opening his monologue at the Globes ’ 77th awards ceremony , presented by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association .
“ Remember , we ’ re all going to die soon .
And there ’ s no sequel.
” It was quite a performance , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrities laughed along with the jokes , many others were not amused , or had uncomfortable reactions .
During the course of his monologue , Gervais joked that this would undoubtedly be his last awards show , so he didn ’ t care if he offended people .
His speech ended up being a phenomenal takedown of an overly political and absurdly left-wing Hollywood that ’ s become obsessed with self-righteous crusades , such as the # MeToo movement , or with bemoaning the supposed lack of racial and gender diversity in movies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t begin the show with a rundown of the celebrity deaths in 2019 because “ when I saw the list of people who died , it wasn ’ t diverse enough.
” He then mocked the entertainment industry for being shamelessly transactional—despite its moralistic pretenses .
Apple roared into the TV game with “ The Morning Show , ” a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing—made by a company that runs sweatshops in China .
So , you say you ’ re “ woke , ” but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Amazon , Disney … If ISIS had a streaming service , you would be calling your agents .
Gervais also poked fun at the smug—yet clueless—way Hollywood talks down to everyone else .
“ You ’ re in no position to lecture the public about anything , ” he said .
“ You know nothing about the real world .
Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.
” Gervais concluded his monologue by making an appeal for award recipients to drop the political lectures .
“ Don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a political speech .
You are in no position to lecture the public about anything .
You know nothing about the real world , ” he said .
What was particularly great about the Gervais monologue is that Hollywood was exposed on its own turf .
Of course , not everyone was pleased .
Some in the media—the less-glamorous handmaiden of the Hollywood set—groused that it was inappropriate to mock celebrities , who are clearly having such a tough time right now .
“ At the Beverly Hilton , where the three-hour-plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already somber , thanks to an impeachment , the threat of war with Iran , and devastating bush fires in Australia , ” wrote Lorraine Ali , the Los Angeles Times ’ television critic .
“ The last thing anyone needed was for the smirking master of ceremonies to reprimand them for having hope , or taunt the room for trying to use their influence to change things for the better.
” Maybe the speech wasn ’ t for them .
Maybe it was simply a comedic reminder to the entertainment industry that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by sticking to entertaining , and that the country really is sick of their tedious and often mockable political sermons .
At the very least , it exposed a vapid Hollywood for what it is , while deflating the superficial virtue-signaling of hypocrites who use their platforms to lecture America and the world about their sins .
Perhaps , through mockery , this really is the beginning of the end of Hollywood ’ s “ Great Awokening .
”

Hollywood can’t take a joke.
At the annual Golden Globes, an awards show for both movies and television, on Sunday night, host comedian Ricky Gervais was actually funny, lampooning Hollywood in general and its “woke” culture in particular.
“Let’s have a laugh at your expense,” Gervais said in opening his monologue at the Globes’ 77th awards ceremony, presented by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. “Remember, we’re all going to die soon. And there’s no sequel.”
It was quite a performance, though it’s clear that while some celebrities laughed along with the jokes, many others were not amused, or had uncomfortable reactions.
During the course of his monologue, Gervais joked that this would undoubtedly be his last awards show, so he didn’t care if he offended people.
His speech ended up being a phenomenal takedown of an overly political and absurdly left-wing Hollywood that’s become obsessed with self-righteous crusades, such as the #MeToo movement, or with bemoaning the supposed lack of racial and gender diversity in movies.
Gervais said that he couldn’t begin the show with a rundown of the celebrity deaths in 2019 because “when I saw the list of people who died, it wasn’t diverse enough.”
He then mocked the entertainment industry for being shamelessly transactional—despite its moralistic pretenses.
Apple roared into the TV game with “The Morning Show,” a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing—made by a company that runs sweatshops in China. So, you say you’re “woke,” but the companies you work for, Apple, Amazon, Disney … If ISIS had a streaming service, you would be calling your agents.
Gervais also poked fun at the smug—yet clueless—way Hollywood talks down to everyone else.
“You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything,” he said. “You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.”
Gervais concluded his monologue by making an appeal for award recipients to drop the political lectures.
“Don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You are in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world,” he said.
What was particularly great about the Gervais monologue is that Hollywood was exposed on its own turf.
Of course, not everyone was pleased. Some in the media—the less-glamorous handmaiden of the Hollywood set—groused that it was inappropriate to mock celebrities, who are clearly having such a tough time right now.
“At the Beverly Hilton, where the three-hour-plus ceremony took place, the mood was already somber, thanks to an impeachment, the threat of war with Iran, and devastating bush fires in Australia,” wrote Lorraine Ali, the Los Angeles Times’ television critic. “The last thing anyone needed was for the smirking master of ceremonies to reprimand them for having hope, or taunt the room for trying to use their influence to change things for the better.”
Maybe the speech wasn’t for them. Maybe it was simply a comedic reminder to the entertainment industry that their talents are best put to use by sticking to entertaining, and that the country really is sick of their tedious and often mockable political sermons.
At the very least, it exposed a vapid Hollywood for what it is, while deflating the superficial virtue-signaling of hypocrites who use their platforms to lecture America and the world about their sins.
Perhaps, through mockery, this really is the beginning of the end of Hollywood’s “Great Awokening.”


dailysignal--2020-01-06--Bolton Says He’s ‘Prepared to Testify’ at Trump Impeachment Trial If Subpoenaed

Former national security adviser John Bolton said Monday he is “ prepared to testify ” at the Senate impeachment trial for President Donald Trump if he is subpoenaed .
Bolton , who left the administration on Sept. 10 , has previously said he would allow the federal courts to determine whether he has to testify to Congress about his White House tenure .
Senate Democrats want Bolton to testify about his knowledge of Trump ’ s position toward Ukraine , while Republicans have said they want a speedy trial without witnesses .
House Democrats have caused a delay in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate hammers out details about how the trial will be conducted .
“ Since my testimony is once again at issue , I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could , based on careful consideration and study .
I have concluded that , if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony , I am prepared to testify , ” Bolton said in a statement issued at a website for his political action committee .
House Democrats opted to vote on articles of impeachment before securing testimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney .
Bolton and Mulvaney are likely to have information about Trump ’ s rationale in withholding the Ukraine aid .
Democrats have asserted that Trump withheld the funding in order to pressure the Ukrainian government to open investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden .
Trump has denied a quid pro quo and said he withheld the money out of concerns with corruption in Ukraine and because European countries were not also providing security assistance .
Administration officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry said that Bolton was skeptical of some of the White House ’ s actions regarding Ukraine .
Fiona Hill , who served as the White House ’ s top Russia expert , said that Bolton described the actions of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and U.S .
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland as a “ drug deal.
” Many of the witnesses described two separate channels of communication between the administration and Ukrainian government .
There was the official channel , which exclusively involved U.S. diplomats and White House officials .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which Giuliani worked with Sondland and another diplomat , Kurt Volker .
Text messages between Sondland and Volker have shown that they pushed for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to publicly announce investigations supported by Trump in exchange for a White House meeting .
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 this original content , email [ email protected ] .

Former national security adviser John Bolton said Monday he is “prepared to testify” at the Senate impeachment trial for President Donald Trump if he is subpoenaed.
Bolton, who left the administration on Sept. 10, has previously said he would allow the federal courts to determine whether he has to testify to Congress about his White House tenure. Senate Democrats want Bolton to testify about his knowledge of Trump’s position toward Ukraine, while Republicans have said they want a speedy trial without witnesses.
House Democrats have caused a delay in the trial by withholding articles of impeachment as the Senate hammers out details about how the trial will be conducted.
“Since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study. I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify,” Bolton said in a statement issued at a website for his political action committee.
House Democrats opted to vote on articles of impeachment before securing testimony from Bolton and other Trump administration officials, including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.
Bolton and Mulvaney are likely to have information about Trump’s rationale in withholding the Ukraine aid. Democrats have asserted that Trump withheld the funding in order to pressure the Ukrainian government to open investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
Trump has denied a quid pro quo and said he withheld the money out of concerns with corruption in Ukraine and because European countries were not also providing security assistance.
Administration officials who have already testified in the impeachment inquiry said that Bolton was skeptical of some of the White House’s actions regarding Ukraine. Fiona Hill, who served as the White House’s top Russia expert, said that Bolton described the actions of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland as a “drug deal.”
Many of the witnesses described two separate channels of communication between the administration and Ukrainian government. There was the official channel, which exclusively involved U.S. diplomats and White House officials. There was also an unofficial channel, in which Giuliani worked with Sondland and another diplomat, Kurt Volker.
Text messages between Sondland and Volker have shown that they pushed for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to publicly announce investigations supported by Trump in exchange for a White House meeting.
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 this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-01-06--What History Says About Witnesses at Senate Impeachment Trials

Key Capitol Hill players in the Bill Clinton impeachment are taking a decidedly different view about the Donald Trump impeachment when it comes to witnesses in a Senate trial .
The two previous presidential impeachment trials in U.S. history included witnesses in some form .
The Senate impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 included live witness testimony , and the Senate trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999 included video-recorded depositions shown to senators , the trial ’ s jurors .
Speaking on the Senate floor Friday , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , said House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he calls an impeachment “ fantasy.
” “ Their turn is over .
They ’ ve done enough damage .
It ’ s the Senate ’ s turn now to render sober judgment , ” McConnell said .
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer has ramped up his demand for witnesses in President Donald Trump ’ s Senate impeachment trial .
Schumer , however , made the opposite argument two decades earlier .
“ Never , never in the history of our country has there been an impeachment trial in which the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses , yet the Republican leader seems intent on violating that precedent and denying critical evidence to this body and to the American people , ” the New York Democrat said .
Schumer , a former House member first elected to the Senate in November 1998 , was deeply involved in the Clinton impeachment process .
He sided with the 42nd president on three critical votes : against articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee and again on the House floor in December 1998 , and , after joining the Senate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ahead of the Clinton trial , Schumer said : “ It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses.
” In another interview in early 1999 , Schumer said : “ I wonder if the House managers [ of the impeachment trial ] aren ’ t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts.
” ‘ End This as Soon as Possible ’ Conversely , Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , was among the 13 House managers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the other House managers strongly pressed Senate leaders for witnesses .
“ My goal is to end this as soon as possible for the good of the country , because I think it ’ s a danger to the presidency to legitimize this , ” Graham told Fox News Channel last month , referring to the upcoming Senate trial .
The Democrat-controlled House impeached Trump on Dec. 18 , charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress with regards to his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders briefly talked about Trump ’ s interest in Zelenskyy ’ s doing America “ a favor ” by investigating two things : interference by Ukraine in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign , and the high-paying role of former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s son , Hunter , on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was point man for U.S. policy on Ukraine .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , has yet to select House managers and send the two formal articles of impeachment to the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Johnson and Clinton trials had witnesses , there was a significant difference , said David O. Stewart , author of “ Impeached : The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln ’ s Legacy.
” “ Depositions don ’ t happen on the floor of the Senate and don ’ t get live coverage , so it is less stressful for the witness , ” Stewart , a lawyer who defended impeached federal Judge Walter Nixon , told The Daily Signal .
“ In 1868 , nobody considered just doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it a real trial.
” Stewart sees some differences between the Clinton and Trump impeachments .
Few facts were in dispute in the Clinton trial , as the House had impeached him based on a prosecutor ’ s report , Stewart noted .
However , he said , there was no definitive report or long investigation into the Trump-Ukraine matter .
Few fact witnesses testified during the House hearings on impeaching Trump , he added .
“ The Clinton case had been thoroughly investigated by the independent counsel , Kenneth Starr , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the case here.
” Stewart said he is not convinced the proceedings won ’ t have witnesses , adding that if House prosecutors have witnesses then the Trump defense team likely would call their own—potentially including Hunter Biden .
Even if Trump invokes executive privilege , it wouldn ’ t necessarily delay the trial for long , he said , referencing the Watergate scandal and the Oval Office tapes of President Richard Nixon .
“ The Nixon tapes case was determined in 30 days , ” Stewart said .
“ Litigation doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process.
” Nixon resigned Aug. 9 , 1974 , after the House Judiciary Committee advanced articles of impeachment about two weeks after the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to release the tapes .
The resignation preempted a full House vote .
In the 1999 Senate trial , prosecutors deposed , on camera , Monica Lewinsky , the White House intern with whom Clinton had an affair ; influential Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan , who would help Lewinsky get a job ; and Clinton senior adviser Sidney Blumenthal .
The House prosecutors and Clinton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depositions to the full Senate during the trial , as they picked portions to buttress their points .
The House had impeached Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with trying to cover up the affair .
More than 130 years earlier , in the Johnson trial , the House managers and the president ’ s defense team got testimony on the Senate floor from politicians and generals of that era with knowledge of Johnson ’ s firing of War Secretary Edwin Stanton .
The House impeached Johnson for violation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibited the president from firing Senate-confirmed officials without Senate approval .
Witnesses in the Johnson trial included Rep. Burt Van Horn , R-N.Y. ; Adjutant General Lorenzo Thompson , who Johnson had appointed temporarily to fill the Stanton vacancy ; former Buffalo Mayor Samuel Wilkeson ; and Rep. James Moorhead , R-Pa .
The testimony of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman , whom Johnson had asked to replace Stanton , was the most damaging to the House case .
Sherman testified that the president directed him to run the War Department effectively .
House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson attempted to have the department thwart the will of Congress during post-Civil War Reconstruction of the South .
If fact witnesses are part of the Trump impeachment trial , using depositions would be better than having witnesses on the Senate floor , said Hans von Spakovsky , senior legal fellow for The Heritage Foundation .
“ There would be too much time for grandstanding if there ’ s testimony on the Senate floor , ” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal .
“ Witnesses aren ’ t about exonerating the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be exonerated .
It ’ s up to the House Democrats to make their case .
The problem is they have not.
” Von Spakovsky said a major problem in the impeachment hearings held by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence stemmed from the lack of fact witnesses and the number of opinion witnesses .
The Senate should not allow opinion witnesses , he said .
Over the weekend , Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani , the former New York mayor , said he is ready to testify if needed .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive privilege regarding those who work for him in an official capacity , ” von Spakovsky said .
“ Giuliani works for him in a personal capacity .
That ’ s still a confusing area when the lawyer representing you is a potential witness .
”

Key Capitol Hill players in the Bill Clinton impeachment are taking a decidedly different view about the Donald Trump impeachment when it comes to witnesses in a Senate trial.
The two previous presidential impeachment trials in U.S. history included witnesses in some form.
The Senate impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 included live witness testimony, and the Senate trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999 included video-recorded depositions shown to senators, the trial’s jurors.
Speaking on the Senate floor Friday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said House Democrats no longer have a say in what he calls an impeachment “fantasy.”
“Their turn is over. They’ve done enough damage. It’s the Senate’s turn now to render sober judgment,” McConnell said.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer has ramped up his demand for witnesses in President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial. Schumer, however, made the opposite argument two decades earlier.
“Never, never in the history of our country has there been an impeachment trial in which the Senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses, yet the Republican leader seems intent on violating that precedent and denying critical evidence to this body and to the American people,” the New York Democrat said.
Schumer, a former House member first elected to the Senate in November 1998, was deeply involved in the Clinton impeachment process.
He sided with the 42nd president on three critical votes: against articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee and again on the House floor in December 1998, and, after joining the Senate, to acquit Clinton in February 1999.
Ahead of the Clinton trial, Schumer said: “It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses.”
In another interview in early 1999, Schumer said: “I wonder if the House managers [of the impeachment trial] aren’t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts.”
‘End This as Soon as Possible’
Conversely, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was among the 13 House managers who prosecuted the case against Clinton. Graham and the other House managers strongly pressed Senate leaders for witnesses.
“My goal is to end this as soon as possible for the good of the country, because I think it’s a danger to the presidency to legitimize this,” Graham told Fox News Channel last month, referring to the upcoming Senate trial.
The Democrat-controlled House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress with regards to his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
In the call, the two leaders briefly talked about Trump’s interest in Zelenskyy’s doing America “a favor” by investigating two things: interference by Ukraine in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, and the high-paying role of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was point man for U.S. policy on Ukraine.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has yet to select House managers and send the two formal articles of impeachment to the Senate for the trial there.
Although both the Johnson and Clinton trials had witnesses, there was a significant difference, said David O. Stewart, author of “Impeached: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy.”
“Depositions don’t happen on the floor of the Senate and don’t get live coverage, so it is less stressful for the witness,” Stewart, a lawyer who defended impeached federal Judge Walter Nixon, told The Daily Signal.
“In 1868, nobody considered just doing depositions. Back then, they considered it a real trial.”
‘Not the Case Here’
Stewart sees some differences between the Clinton and Trump impeachments.
Few facts were in dispute in the Clinton trial, as the House had impeached him based on a prosecutor’s report, Stewart noted. However, he said, there was no definitive report or long investigation into the Trump-Ukraine matter.
Few fact witnesses testified during the House hearings on impeaching Trump, he added.
“The Clinton case had been thoroughly investigated by the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr,” Stewart said. “That’s not the case here.”
Stewart said he is not convinced the proceedings won’t have witnesses, adding that if House prosecutors have witnesses then the Trump defense team likely would call their own—potentially including Hunter Biden.
Even if Trump invokes executive privilege, it wouldn’t necessarily delay the trial for long, he said, referencing the Watergate scandal and the Oval Office tapes of President Richard Nixon.
“The Nixon tapes case was determined in 30 days,” Stewart said. “Litigation doesn’t have to be a long process.”
Nixon resigned Aug. 9, 1974, after the House Judiciary Committee advanced articles of impeachment about two weeks after the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to release the tapes. The resignation preempted a full House vote.
Disparate Sets of Witnesses
In the 1999 Senate trial, prosecutors deposed, on camera, Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern with whom Clinton had an affair; influential Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan, who would help Lewinsky get a job; and Clinton senior adviser Sidney Blumenthal.
The House prosecutors and Clinton’s lawyers showed portions of the video-recorded depositions to the full Senate during the trial, as they picked portions to buttress their points.
The House had impeached Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with trying to cover up the affair.
More than 130 years earlier, in the Johnson trial, the House managers and the president’s defense team got testimony on the Senate floor from politicians and generals of that era with knowledge of Johnson’s firing of War Secretary Edwin Stanton.
The House impeached Johnson for violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which prohibited the president from firing Senate-confirmed officials without Senate approval.
Witnesses in the Johnson trial included Rep. Burt Van Horn, R-N.Y.; Adjutant General Lorenzo Thompson, who Johnson had appointed temporarily to fill the Stanton vacancy; former Buffalo Mayor Samuel Wilkeson; and Rep. James Moorhead, R-Pa.
The testimony of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, whom Johnson had asked to replace Stanton, was the most damaging to the House case. Sherman testified that the president directed him to run the War Department effectively.
House Republicans had anticipated Sherman would testify that Johnson attempted to have the department thwart the will of Congress during post-Civil War Reconstruction of the South.
‘Too Much Time for Grandstanding’
If fact witnesses are part of the Trump impeachment trial, using depositions would be better than having witnesses on the Senate floor, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow for The Heritage Foundation.
“There would be too much time for grandstanding if there’s testimony on the Senate floor,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “Witnesses aren’t about exonerating the president. The president doesn’t have to be exonerated. It’s up to the House Democrats to make their case. The problem is they have not.”
Von Spakovsky said a major problem in the impeachment hearings held by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence stemmed from the lack of fact witnesses and the number of opinion witnesses. The Senate should not allow opinion witnesses, he said.
Over the weekend, Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, said he is ready to testify if needed.
“The president has the ability to exert executive privilege regarding those who work for him in an official capacity,” von Spakovsky said.
“Giuliani works for him in a personal capacity. That’s still a confusing area when the lawyer representing you is a potential witness.”


dailysignal--2020-01-03--Rep. Ilhan Omar, Liberals Accuse Trump of Killing Terrorist Soleimani as a ‘Distraction’

Rep. Ilhan Omar , D-Minn. , accused President Donald Trump of killing Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani—a designated terrorist by the U.S. government—as a “ distraction ” from domestic political issues .
Other left-of-center Trump critics echoed Omar ’ s accusation that Trump authorized the strike on Soleimani as a “ distraction.
” “ It ’ s highly possible then timing of tonight ’ s attack was meant as a distraction , ” MSNBC contributor Joyce Alene wrote on Twitter , adding , “ Trump wants to distract you ” from the impeachment issue .
“ Given that US response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contractor was so disproportionate and predictably provocative , today ’ s air strike feels like attempt to create a distraction from Impeachment and build support for Trump , ” CNN commentator Karen Finney tweeted .
“ You have to wonder if Friday ’ s jobs report is so bad that it caused Trump to launch attack on Iran ’ s Soleimani to distract ?
” CNN and Daily Beast columnist Dean Obeidallah wrote .
“ I ’ m not saying he ’ s starting a war to distract , I ’ m only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of monster who would , ” wrote liberal author Mikel Jollett .
“ Trump is starting his own war to distract from his own Impeachment .
It ’ s the most obvious move and we all saw this coming , ” United Nations Environment Goodwill Ambassador Aidan Gallagher tweeted .
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 this original content , email [ email protected ]

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., accused President Donald Trump of killing Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani—a designated terrorist by the U.S. government—as a “distraction” from domestic political issues.
Other left-of-center Trump critics echoed Omar’s accusation that Trump authorized the strike on Soleimani as a “distraction.”
“It’s highly possible then timing of tonight’s attack was meant as a distraction,” MSNBC contributor Joyce Alene wrote on Twitter, adding, “Trump wants to distract you” from the impeachment issue.
So what if Trump wants war, knows this leads to war and needs the distraction?
Real question is, will those with congressional authority step in and stop him? I know I will. https://t.co/Fj9TMossEW — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 3, 2020
Why did Trump kill Soleimani now? Preventive strike? Election strategy? Impeachment distraction? I vote: ego https://t.co/lfDlf3234L — Jamal Abdi (@jabdi) January 3, 2020
“Given that US response to the attack that killed an American contractor was so disproportionate and predictably provocative, today’s air strike feels like attempt to create a distraction from Impeachment and build support for Trump,” CNN commentator Karen Finney tweeted.
“You have to wonder if Friday’s jobs report is so bad that it caused Trump to launch attack on Iran’s Soleimani to distract?” CNN and Daily Beast columnist Dean Obeidallah wrote.
“I’m not saying he’s starting a war to distract, I’m only saying he’s EXACTLY the kind of monster who would,” wrote liberal author Mikel Jollett.
Let’s be absolutely clear on this: Trump ordered the assassination of Qasem Solemani to start a war with Iran and distract from his heinous undermining of our Constitution. This is a blatant attempt to further subvert the democratic process, no matter the cost to our military. https://t.co/8G8xVBRoj6 — Charlotte Clymer???? (@cmclymer) January 3, 2020
It may be a distraction from impeachment for a time but the price in blood will be high. It’s that price I worry that Trump hasn’t thought through. https://t.co/lSUk7SsY9I — John Sweeney (@johnsweeneyroar) January 3, 2020
“Trump is starting his own war to distract from his own Impeachment. It’s the most obvious move and we all saw this coming,” United Nations Environment Goodwill Ambassador Aidan Gallagher tweeted.
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 this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-01-02--The Dangers of Elite Groupthink

The Dangers of Elite Groupthink

The Washington Post recently published a surprising indictment of MSNBC host , Stanford graduate , and Rhodes scholar Rachel Maddow .
Post media critic Erik Wemple wrote that Maddow deliberately misled her audience by claiming the now-discredited Steele dossier was largely verifiable—even at a time when there was plenty of evidence that it was mostly bogus .
At the very time Maddow was reassuring viewers that Christopher Steele was believable , populist talk radio and the much-criticized Fox News Channel were insisting that most of Steele ’ s allegations simply could not be true .
Maddow was wrong .
Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2018 , the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , Rep. Devin Nunes , R-Calif. , and the committee ’ s then-ranking minority member , Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , each issued contrasting reports of the committee ’ s investigation into allegations of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump ’ s campaign team and the misbehavior of federal agencies .
Schiff ’ s memo was widely praised by the media .
Nunes ’ report was condemned as rank and partisan .
Many in the media went further .
They contrasted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Californian Nunes to help explain why the clever Schiff got to the bottom of collusion and the “ former dairy farmer ” Nunes was “ way over his head ” and had “ no idea what ’ s going on.
” Recently , the nonpartisan inspector general of the Department of Justice , Michael Horowitz , found widespread wrongdoing at the DOJ and FBI .
He confirmed the key findings in the Nunes memo about the Steele dossier and its pernicious role in the FISA application seeking a warrant against former Trump campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of what the once-praised Schiff had claimed to be true was proven wrong by Horowitz—from Schiff ’ s insistence that the FBI verified the Steele dossier to his assertion that the Department of Justice did not rely chiefly on the dossier for its warrant application .
When special counsel Robert Mueller formed an investigatory team , he stocked it with young , progressive Washington insiders , many with blue-chip degrees and resumes .
The media swooned .
Washington journalists became giddy over the prospect of a “ dream team ” of such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposedly far less impressively credentialed Trump legal team .
We were assured by a snobbish Vox that “ Special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s legal team is full of pros .
Trump ’ s team makes typos.
” Yet after 22 months and $ 32 million worth of investigation , Mueller ’ s team found no Russian collusion and no evidence of actionable Trump obstruction during the investigation of that non-crime .
All the constant media reports that “ bombshell ” Mueller team disclosures were imminent and that the “ walls are closing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mueller himself testified before Congress , only to appear befuddled and almost clueless at times about his own investigation .
Many of his supposedly brightest all-stars , such as Lisa Page , Peter Strzok , and Kevin Clinesmith , had to leave his dream team due to unethical behavior .
In contrast , Trump ’ s widely derided chief lawyers—69-year-old Ty Cobb , 78-year-old John Dowd , and 63-year-old radio and TV host Jay Sekulow—stayed out of the headlines .
They advised Trump to cooperate with the Mueller team and systematically offered evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not collude with the Russians to warp the 2016 election .
In the end , Mueller ’ s “ hunter-killer team ” was forced to agree .
When the supposed clueless Trump was elected , a number of elites pronounced his economic plans to be absurd .
We were told that Trump was bound to destroy the U.S. economy .
Former Princeton professor and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman insisted that Trump would crash the stock market .
He even suggested that stocks might never recover .
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year and a half .
The former head of the National Economic Council , Steven Rattner , predicted a market crash of “ historic proportions.
” In contrast , many of Trump ’ s economic advisers during his campaign and administration , including outsider Peter Navarro , pundit Stephen Moore , former TV host Larry Kudlow , and octogenarian Wilbur Ross , were caricatured .
Yet three years later , in terms of the stock market , unemployment , energy production , and workers ’ wages , the economy has been doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrasts is not that an Ivy League degree or a Washington reputation is of little value , or that prestigious prizes and honors account for nothing , or even that supposed experts are always unethical and silly .
Instead , one lesson is that conventional wisdom and groupthink tend to mislead , especially in the age of online echo chambers and often sheltered and blinkered elite lives .
We forget that knowledge can be found at all ages , and in all places .
And ethics has nothing to do with degrees or @ @

The Washington Post recently published a surprising indictment of MSNBC host, Stanford graduate, and Rhodes scholar Rachel Maddow.
Post media critic Erik Wemple wrote that Maddow deliberately misled her audience by claiming the now-discredited Steele dossier was largely verifiable—even at a time when there was plenty of evidence that it was mostly bogus.
At the very time Maddow was reassuring viewers that Christopher Steele was believable, populist talk radio and the much-criticized Fox News Channel were insisting that most of Steele’s allegations simply could not be true. Maddow was wrong. Her less degreed critics proved to be right.
In 2018, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and the committee’s then-ranking minority member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., each issued contrasting reports of the committee’s investigation into allegations of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign team and the misbehavior of federal agencies.
Schiff’s memo was widely praised by the media. Nunes’ report was condemned as rank and partisan.
Many in the media went further. They contrasted Harvard Law graduate Schiff with rural central Californian Nunes to help explain why the clever Schiff got to the bottom of collusion and the “former dairy farmer” Nunes was “way over his head” and had “no idea what’s going on.”
Recently, the nonpartisan inspector general of the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz, found widespread wrongdoing at the DOJ and FBI. He confirmed the key findings in the Nunes memo about the Steele dossier and its pernicious role in the FISA application seeking a warrant against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
In contrast, much of what the once-praised Schiff had claimed to be true was proven wrong by Horowitz—from Schiff’s insistence that the FBI verified the Steele dossier to his assertion that the Department of Justice did not rely chiefly on the dossier for its warrant application.
When special counsel Robert Mueller formed an investigatory team, he stocked it with young, progressive Washington insiders, many with blue-chip degrees and resumes.
The media swooned. Washington journalists became giddy over the prospect of a “dream team” of such “all-stars” who would demolish the supposedly far less impressively credentialed Trump legal team.
We were assured by a snobbish Vox that “Special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team is full of pros. Trump’s team makes typos.”
Yet after 22 months and $32 million worth of investigation, Mueller’s team found no Russian collusion and no evidence of actionable Trump obstruction during the investigation of that non-crime. All the constant media reports that “bombshell” Mueller team disclosures were imminent and that the “walls are closing in” on Trump proved false.
Mueller himself testified before Congress, only to appear befuddled and almost clueless at times about his own investigation. Many of his supposedly brightest all-stars, such as Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and Kevin Clinesmith, had to leave his dream team due to unethical behavior.
In contrast, Trump’s widely derided chief lawyers—69-year-old Ty Cobb, 78-year-old John Dowd, and 63-year-old radio and TV host Jay Sekulow—stayed out of the headlines. They advised Trump to cooperate with the Mueller team and systematically offered evidence and analyses to prove that Trump did not collude with the Russians to warp the 2016 election. In the end, Mueller’s “hunter-killer team” was forced to agree.
When the supposed clueless Trump was elected, a number of elites pronounced his economic plans to be absurd. We were told that Trump was bound to destroy the U.S. economy.
Former Princeton professor and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman insisted that Trump would crash the stock market. He even suggested that stocks might never recover.
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said Trump would bring on a recession within a year and a half.
The former head of the National Economic Council, Steven Rattner, predicted a market crash of “historic proportions.”
In contrast, many of Trump’s economic advisers during his campaign and administration, including outsider Peter Navarro, pundit Stephen Moore, former TV host Larry Kudlow, and octogenarian Wilbur Ross, were caricatured.
Yet three years later, in terms of the stock market, unemployment, energy production, and workers’ wages, the economy has been doing superbly.
The point of these sharp contrasts is not that an Ivy League degree or a Washington reputation is of little value, or that prestigious prizes and honors account for nothing, or even that supposed experts are always unethical and silly.
Instead, one lesson is that conventional wisdom and groupthink tend to mislead, especially in the age of online echo chambers and often sheltered and blinkered elite lives.
We forget that knowledge can be found at all ages, and in all places. And ethics has nothing to do with degrees or pedigrees.
(C) 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-01-02--Sarah Palin Seeks New York Times Advertising Revenue as Libel Lawsuit Heads Toward Trial

Former Alaska Gov .
Sarah Palin filed a complaint in her libel lawsuit against The New York Times , after the paper published an editorial that falsely linked Palin to the 2011 shooting of former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords .
The filing , which proceeds a jury trial that will begin in June , seeks financial damages as well as any advertising revenues the paper might have raised from the editorial .
“ The Times reaped ill-gotten gains from Internet advertising on the Palin Article , which under the unique and special circumstances of this case , it should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint reads .
“ The Times should not be permitted to profit from a false and defamatory column printed with actual malice and with the knowledge that because of the identity of the victim of the publication it will inevitably ‘ drive viewership and web clicks , ’ ” it adds .
Palin ’ s original lawsuit similarly sought disgorgement of advertising revenues the editorial might have generated .
The paper countered that the governor can not ask for those monies .
Lawyers for the Times say the only remedy available in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reputational harms or attendant physical and emotional injuries .
Palin can not seek advertising dollars in addition to a damages award , they argued .
“ There is simply no precedent for the proposition asserted in the Complaint that Mrs. Palin is entitled to disgorgement of The Times ’ s advertising revenue as an element of her damages in this defamation action , ” The New York Times lawyers wrote at an earlier phase of the case .
The 2nd U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals revived her lawsuit in August , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case in August 2017 .
The 2nd Circuit said the dispute “ took an unusual procedural turn ” that warranted reversal .
The Times subsequently appended multiple notes to the editorial conceding there is no link between Loughner and Palin ’ s activities , though they did not refer to the governor by name .
Palin ’ s lawsuit followed shortly thereafter .
The paper has subsequently expressed regret for the mistake , but strongly denied accusations of bad faith .
“ While a failure to retract or correct is not probative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to publish corrections in this manner actually undermines any plausible claim of actual malice , ” the Times ’ filing reads .
The case will be tried before a jury beginning June 22 , according to a case management plan the court adopted .
The evidence-gathering phase will conclude April 13 .
The case is Palin v. The New York Times Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ licensing opportunities of this original content , email [ email protected ]

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed a complaint in her libel lawsuit against The New York Times, after the paper published an editorial that falsely linked Palin to the 2011 shooting of former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords.
The filing, which proceeds a jury trial that will begin in June, seeks financial damages as well as any advertising revenues the paper might have raised from the editorial.
“The Times reaped ill-gotten gains from Internet advertising on the Palin Article, which under the unique and special circumstances of this case, it should not be permitted to retain,” the complaint reads.
“The Times should not be permitted to profit from a false and defamatory column printed with actual malice and with the knowledge that because of the identity of the victim of the publication it will inevitably ‘drive viewership and web clicks,’” it adds.
Palin’s original lawsuit similarly sought disgorgement of advertising revenues the editorial might have generated. The paper countered that the governor cannot ask for those monies. Lawyers for the Times say the only remedy available in a defamation lawsuit is a financial award for reputational harms or attendant physical and emotional injuries. Palin cannot seek advertising dollars in addition to a damages award, they argued.
“There is simply no precedent for the proposition asserted in the Complaint that Mrs. Palin is entitled to disgorgement of The Times’s advertising revenue as an element of her damages in this defamation action,” The New York Times lawyers wrote at an earlier phase of the case.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived her lawsuit in August, after a federal trial judge in Manhattan dismissed the case in August 2017. The 2nd Circuit said the dispute “took an unusual procedural turn” that warranted reversal.
The Times subsequently appended multiple notes to the editorial conceding there is no link between Loughner and Palin’s activities, though they did not refer to the governor by name. Palin’s lawsuit followed shortly thereafter.
The paper has subsequently expressed regret for the mistake, but strongly denied accusations of bad faith.
“While a failure to retract or correct is not probative evidence of actual malice, a decision to publish corrections in this manner actually undermines any plausible claim of actual malice,” the Times’ filing reads.
The case will be tried before a jury beginning June 22, according to a case management plan the court adopted. The evidence-gathering phase will conclude April 13. The case is Palin v. The New York Times Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
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 this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-01-07--Newsweek Hits a New Low

Newsweek Hits a New Low

If decent people working in mainstream American media want to know why many Americans do not trust them and are willing to use the term “ fake news ” to describe the mainstream media , I offer one of the most glaring examples of a lie in my lifetime .
Last week , Newsweek headlined the following : “ Conservative Radio Host Ridicules Anne Frank : ‘ I Don ’ t Get My Wisdom From Teenagers . '
” Now , imagine how that must have struck any reader not familiar with the “ conservative radio host ” or with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anne Frank ” —what kind of terrible human being would do that ?
Well , it turns out the “ conservative radio host ” was me .
Yes , me—a religious Jew who has devoted much of his life to the welfare of the Jewish people , served on the board of the U.S .
Holocaust Museum , made the most widely viewed pro-Israel video in the world , written a book on anti-Semitism that is in its third printing , and founded a synagogue and a Jewish day school .
To understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you need to know what happened : Every week I do a video podcast for PragerU called “ The Fireside Chat.
” In it , I offer thoughts on life and then take questions from around the world ( we have received questions from 52 countries ) .
A few weeks ago , I received the following question from Sam in Meridian , Idaho : Here is my response ( this is a word-for-word transcription , except for the words in parentheses added for clarity ) : She wrote that in her diary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( She was ) a teenage girl , a Dutch Jewish girl , who hid with her family until they were betrayed by someone to the Nazis , who then shipped them to death camps .
And she died , murdered by the Nazis in the death camps .
She was about 16 years old , maybe 15 .
Her diary is very famous .
It gives a face to the horror of the Holocaust .
I know she wrote that , and my answer is it doesn ’ t matter that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get my wisdom from teenagers .
That she was a wonderful young woman and wrote an unbelievably powerful document that will last forever is beside the point .
I don ’ t expect 16-year-olds , unless they grew up in a religious Jewish or Christian home ( where it is taught as basic religious doctrine that people are not born basically good ) .
She was a secular Jew .
Most kids believe that ( people are basically good ) .
But it is not true .
So , it has never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you disagree with Anne Frank.
’ So what ?
And , by the way , to be very serious for a moment , I would be very curious—I ’ ve thought about this a lot—if I were to be able to visit Anne Frank while in a concentration camp , would she have still believed that ?
We don ’ t know .
Only someone who deliberately seeks to smear someone would claim that what I said ridicules Anne Frank .
The person who wrote this is Benjamin Fearnow , a deputy editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left-wing site Mediaite .
When I looked up Fearnow , I came across this December 2018 tweet from talk show host Mark Levin : “ Newsweek ’ s Benjamin Fearnow is a very , very sick person.
” And Rabbi Joseph Telushkin , one of the most revered Jewish scholars in America—author of such Jewish classics as “ Jewish Literacy ” and “ Biblical Literacy ” —called me to say that Fearnow ’ s article saying I ridiculed Anne Frank is “ the most despicable lie I recall reading in a mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fearnow ’ s column headlined , “ Top Iranian Presidential Adviser Says Tehran ’ s ‘ Sole Problem Is Trump , ’ Not Average American People.
” Apparently , Fearnow has chosen to serve as a useful idiot for the Iranian regime , which hates America , not only President Donald Trump .
( Does Fearnow believe that the Iranian chant “ Death to Israel ” only means “ Death to Netanyahu ” ? )
The Iranian regime has gathered millions of Iranians to chant “ Death to America ” since long before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been wishing death on us and killing Americans ( not to mention Iranians ) since it came into power in 1979 .
But Fearnow cites the Iranian dictator , Ayatollah Khamenei , as having said last February that “ ‘ Death to America ’ means death to Trump , [ national security adviser ] John Bolton , and [ Secretary of State Mike ] Pompeo , ” as if it were credible .
Meanwhile , multiple left-wing sites have picked up Fearnow ’ s and Newsweek ’ s lie that I ridiculed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honor , it will remove Fearnow ’ s article and apologize to me .
But neither is likely .
As I wrote 30 years ago , “ Being on the left means never having to say you ’ re sorry.
” Next time someone challenges you for using the term “ fake news ” to describe mainstream media , just cite Newsweek and Fearnow .

If decent people working in mainstream American media want to know why many Americans do not trust them and are willing to use the term “fake news” to describe the mainstream media, I offer one of the most glaring examples of a lie in my lifetime.
Last week, Newsweek headlined the following: “Conservative Radio Host Ridicules Anne Frank: ‘I Don’t Get My Wisdom From Teenagers.'”
Now, imagine how that must have struck any reader not familiar with the “conservative radio host” or with what he actually said. “Ridicule Anne Frank”—what kind of terrible human being would do that?
Well, it turns out the “conservative radio host” was me. Yes, me—a religious Jew who has devoted much of his life to the welfare of the Jewish people, served on the board of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, made the most widely viewed pro-Israel video in the world, written a book on anti-Semitism that is in its third printing, and founded a synagogue and a Jewish day school.
To understand how terrible a lie this is, you need to know what happened:
Every week I do a video podcast for PragerU called “The Fireside Chat.” In it, I offer thoughts on life and then take questions from around the world (we have received questions from 52 countries). A few weeks ago, I received the following question from Sam in Meridian, Idaho:
On your most recent Fireside Chat, you said that people are not basically good. We’ve heard you discuss this topic before. Anne Frank is quoted as saying, ‘Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart.’ How do you respond to her quote?
Here is my response (this is a word-for-word transcription, except for the words in parentheses added for clarity):
She wrote that in her diary, the most famous Holocaust document. (She was) a teenage girl, a Dutch Jewish girl, who hid with her family until they were betrayed by someone to the Nazis, who then shipped them to death camps. And she died, murdered by the Nazis in the death camps. She was about 16 years old, maybe 15. Her diary is very famous. It gives a face to the horror of the Holocaust. I know she wrote that, and my answer is it doesn’t matter that she wrote it. I don’t get my wisdom from teenagers. That she was a wonderful young woman and wrote an unbelievably powerful document that will last forever is beside the point. I don’t expect 16-year-olds, unless they grew up in a religious Jewish or Christian home (where it is taught as basic religious doctrine that people are not born basically good). She was a secular Jew. Most kids believe that (people are basically good). But it is not true. So, it has never been an issue for me—‘Well, you disagree with Anne Frank.’ So what? And, by the way, to be very serious for a moment, I would be very curious—I’ve thought about this a lot—if I were to be able to visit Anne Frank while in a concentration camp, would she have still believed that? We don’t know.
Only someone who deliberately seeks to smear someone would claim that what I said ridicules Anne Frank.
The person who wrote this is Benjamin Fearnow, a deputy editor at Newsweek, who previously worked for the left-wing site Mediaite.
When I looked up Fearnow, I came across this December 2018 tweet from talk show host Mark Levin: “Newsweek’s Benjamin Fearnow is a very, very sick person.”
And Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, one of the most revered Jewish scholars in America—author of such Jewish classics as “Jewish Literacy” and “Biblical Literacy”—called me to say that Fearnow’s article saying I ridiculed Anne Frank is “the most despicable lie I recall reading in a mainstream news source.”
Yesterday, Newsweek published Fearnow’s column headlined, “Top Iranian Presidential Adviser Says Tehran’s ‘Sole Problem Is Trump,’ Not Average American People.”
Apparently, Fearnow has chosen to serve as a useful idiot for the Iranian regime, which hates America, not only President Donald Trump. (Does Fearnow believe that the Iranian chant “Death to Israel” only means “Death to Netanyahu”?)
The Iranian regime has gathered millions of Iranians to chant “Death to America” since long before it ever heard of Trump. It has been wishing death on us and killing Americans (not to mention Iranians) since it came into power in 1979.
But Fearnow cites the Iranian dictator, Ayatollah Khamenei, as having said last February that “‘Death to America’ means death to Trump, [national security adviser] John Bolton, and [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo,” as if it were credible.
Meanwhile, multiple left-wing sites have picked up Fearnow’s and Newsweek’s lie that I ridiculed Anne Frank.
If Newsweek has any honor, it will remove Fearnow’s article and apologize to me.
But neither is likely. As I wrote 30 years ago, “Being on the left means never having to say you’re sorry.”
Next time someone challenges you for using the term “fake news” to describe mainstream media, just cite Newsweek and Fearnow.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-01-06--At the Golden Globes, Ricky Gervais Exposes Hollywood’s ‘Woke’ Culture