dailysignal--2020-01-25--7 Big Moments in Democrats’ Final Arguments to Remove Trump

In their final day of arguments that the Senate should remove President Donald Trump from office , House Democrats questioned the president ’ s character and defended former Vice President Joe Biden .
The seven House Democrats who are impeachment managers , acting as prosecutors , finished their allotted 24 hours on their third day of arguments on the Senate floor .
The Senate adjourned just before 9 p.m. Trump ’ s legal defense team is scheduled to begin counterarguments Saturday at 10 a.m. , but is expected to use only a few hours of the allotted 24 hours .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cipollone ; Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow ; constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz ; and former independent counsel Ken Starr .
After each side presents its case , the Senate will vote on whether to call witnesses to testify .
It takes a two-thirds majority , or 67 senators , to remove a president from office .
Here are highlights from Day 3 of the Democrats ’ arguments : Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , leader of the House managers , made an impassioned plea to the senators to put themselves “ in someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , those of Joe Biden .
“ Let ’ s imagine it wasn ’ t Joe Biden .
Let ’ s imagine it was anyone of us , ” Schiff said , adding : In 2016 , Biden , as vice president , threatened to withhold $ 1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the Eastern European nation fired Viktor Shokin , the state prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings .
Hunter Biden , the vice president ’ s son , held a high-paying job on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time his father was the Obama administration ’ s point man for Ukraine policy .
In a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy , the two men briefly discussed Trump ’ s interest in Ukraine ’ s investigating the matter along with Ukraine ’ s possible meddling in the 2016 U.S. election .
At the time , unknown to Zelenskyy , Trump had put a hold on $ 391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine to counter Russian aggression , which he would lift in September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure on Ukraine to begin investigations .
During his argument Friday on the Senate floor , Schiff brought up former U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch , who Trump recalled to the United States on May 20 , the day of Zelenskyy ’ s inauguration .
Yovanovitch continues to work for the State Department .
“ Would you think he [ Trump ] was abusing the power of his office ?
And if you would , it shouldn ’ t matter that it wasn ’ t you , ” Schiff continued .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was Marie Yovanovitch .
It shouldn ’ t matter that it was Joe Biden .
Because I ’ ll tell you something ; The next time , it just may be you.
” Schiff warned that Trump likely wouldn ’ t be loyal to his own Republican allies in the Senate if it didn ’ t benefit him .
“ Do you think for a moment , no matter what your relationship with this president , no matter how close you are to this president , do you think for a moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his interest , he wouldn ’ t ask you to be investigated ?
” Schiff said .
“ If somewhere deep down below , you realize that he would , you can not leave a man like that in office when he has violated the Constitution .
It shouldn ’ t matter that it was Joe Biden .
It could have been any of us .
It may be any of us , ” he said .
Schiff later added , referring to the elder Biden : “ Yes , he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still a U.S. citizen , and he deserves better than that.
” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries , D-N.Y. , said Trump ’ s conduct represented an assault on the character of the country .
“ There ’ s a toxic mess at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue , and I humbly suggest that it ’ s our collective job on behalf of the American people to try to clean it up , ” Jeffries said .
“ President Trump tried to cheat .
He got caught , and then he worked hard to cover it up.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about impeachment in the context of the Civil War , the Great Depression , World War II , the Jim Crow era , and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 , 2001 .
“ America is a great country .
We can handle adversity better than any other nation in the world , but what are we going to do about our character ?
” Jeffries asked , adding : “ You don ’ t realize how important character is in the highest office in the land until you don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president willing to use his power to coerce an ally to help him cheat , to investigate one of our fellow citizens , ” Schiff said .
Rep. Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , an impeachment manager who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , called Trump “ a dictator ” who must be removed for not cooperating with the House ’ s impeachment inquiry .
“ President Trump is an outlier .
He ’ s the first and only president to declare himself unaccountable and to ignore subpoenas backed by the Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , adding : Nadler , not mentioning that House Democrats didn ’ t try to enforce their subpoenas through the courts , also said : Rep. Jason Crow , D-Colo. , a former Army Ranger , pushed that military role in buttressing Democrats ’ national security argument .
“ This defense would be laughable if this issue wasn ’ t so serious , ” Crow said on the Senate floor , in anticipation of an argument the president ’ s lawyers will make .
“ No , the delay wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in trenches now.
” Crow suggested that former national security adviser John Bolton , who Democrats want as a witness in the trial , might have quit because of the hold on aid to Ukraine .
“ Ambassador Bolton could shed light on that himself if he were to testify , ” Crow said .
Schiff also noted , while on the Senate floor , the huge reliance Ukraine had on the United States , which provides 10 % of the country ’ s military budget .
“ Withholding aid has real consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Schiff said , adding the hold only “ emboldened Russia.
” Trump ultimately followed through on military aid to Ukraine to defend itself from Russia , while President Barack Obama did not , Trump ’ s defenders note .
Chief Justice John Roberts is presiding over the trial , as is his constitutional duty .
Going back to his confirmation hearing , Roberts generally has said he only calls balls and strikes .
However , on Friday , Schiff broached the subject of having Roberts make the final decision on calling witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats and two independents will have a tough time getting four Republicans to join them for a majority to vote for calling witnesses .
Schiff cited Senate precedent from the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson , which ended in acquittal .
In that trial , Chief Justice Salmon Chase cast a tie-breaking vote .
“ We have a very capable justice sitting in that Senate chamber empowered by the Senate rules to decide issues of evidence and privilege , ” Schiff told reporters .
“ So if any of these witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make or the president on their behalf , we have a justice that is able to make those determinations.
” Crow said he was anticipating the arguments of the president ’ s defense team , set to begin Saturday .
“ Now since we won ’ t have an opportunity to respond to the president ’ s presentation , I want to take a minute to respond to some of the arguments that I expect them to make , ” Crow said .
The Colorado Democrat said the president ’ s lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the $ 391 million in security assistance from the U.S. “ Regardless of whether the aid was ultimately released , the fact that the hold became public sent a very important signal to Russia that our support was wavering , ” Crow said .
“ The damage was done.
” Crow warned senators that the Trump defense team will “ cherry-pick ” evidence and advised : “ Don ’ t be fooled.
” Ukraine received the $ 391 million in military aid only after news broke of a whistleblower complaint about the Trump-Zelenskyy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The scheme was unraveling .
He only released it after he got caught , ” Crow said of Trump .
Schiff dismissed the often-repeated line from Trump defenders that the president had sought to address corruption in Ukraine before delivering the aid .
“ He was not trying to end corruption in Ukraine , ” Schiff said .
“ He was trying to aim corruption in Ukraine at Joe Biden.
” Trump ’ s refusal to cooperate with impeachment investigators could set a dangerous precedent , Rep. Zoe Lofgren , D-Calif. , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president from office for obstruction of Congress .
“ All presidents after him with have veto power over Congress ’ ability to conduct oversight and the power of impeachment , ” Lofgren said .
“ The House was not prepared to accept that , and that ’ s why the House approved Article 2 , ” she said , referring to the House ’ s second article of impeachment .
Lofgren was a member of the House Judiciary Committee during the 1998 impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton and a congressional staffer during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nixon .
Over two days of arguments , the seven House impeachment managers prosecuted the case for abuse of power against Trump .
The first three hours of Friday ’ s proceedings closed out their arguments for that first article of impeachment .
Just before 5 p.m. , Democrats began arguing that the Senate should remove Trump from office for obstruction of Congress , charging that the president didn ’ t cooperate with the House ’ s impeachment investigation .
The House sent several subpoenas during the investigation .
Cipollone , the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in October saying that the White House would not provide any documents or witnesses .
The letter asserted that the impeachment investigation was an attempt both to overturn the results of the 2016 election and to influence the outcome of the 2020 contest .
Republicans , criticizing the second impeachment article , say House Democrats didn ’ t even attempt to enforce their subpoenas in court .
The House subpoenaed White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and various other officials , but not Bolton .
Still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defy House subpoenas .
“ In the history of our republic , no president ever dared to issue an order to prevent even a single government witness from testifying in an impeachment inquiry , ” Lofgren said .
“ President Trump abused the power of his office by using his official power in an attempt to prevent every single person who works in the executive branch from testifying before the House , ” she said .
In fact , the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence , which led the investigation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials who either were deposed behind closed doors or gave public testimony .
Trump made no attempt to cooperate with the House investigation , said Rep. Sylvia Garcia , D-Texas , a former state judge .
“ At President Trump ’ s order , agencies and offices refused to produce documents in response to the committee ’ s request , ” Garcia said .
“ They refused to allow individual witnesses to do so either.
” “ So let ’ s recap .
No documents .
Zero , goose eggs , nada , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five subpoenas.
” This report was updated to include later developments .

In their final day of arguments that the Senate should remove President Donald Trump from office, House Democrats questioned the president’s character and defended former Vice President Joe Biden.
The seven House Democrats who are impeachment managers, acting as prosecutors, used just over 21 of their allotted 24 hours before concluding their third day of arguments on the Senate floor. The Senate adjourned just before 9 p.m.
Trump’s legal defense team is scheduled to begin counterarguments Saturday at 10 a.m., but is expected to use only a few hours of the allotted 24 hours and to continue Monday. The team includes White House counsel Pat Cipollone; Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow; constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz; and former independent counsel Ken Starr.
After each side presents its case, the Senate will vote on whether to call witnesses to testify. It takes a two-thirds majority, or 67 senators, to remove a president from office.
Here are highlights from Day 3 of the Democrats’ arguments:
1. ‘Imagine It Wasn’t Joe Biden’
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., leader of the House managers, made an impassioned plea to the senators to put themselves “in someone else’s shoes,” in this case, those of Joe Biden.
“Let’s imagine it wasn’t Joe Biden. Let’s imagine it was anyone of us,” Schiff said, adding:
Let’s imagine the most powerful person in the world was asking a foreign nation to conduct a sham investigation into one of us. What would we think about it then? Would we think that’s a good U.S. policy? Would we think he has every right to do it? Would we think that’s a ‘perfect’ call?
In 2016, Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the Eastern European nation fired Viktor Shokin, the state prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.
Hunter Biden, the vice president’s son, held a high-paying job on the board of Burisma at the same time his father was the Obama administration’s point man for Ukraine policy.
In a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the two men briefly discussed Trump’s interest in Ukraine’s investigating the matter along with Ukraine’s possible meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
At the time, unknown to Zelenskyy, Trump had put a hold on $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine to counter Russian aggression, which he would lift in September.
Both presidents say there was no pressure on Ukraine to begin investigations.
During his argument Friday on the Senate floor, Schiff brought up former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who Trump recalled to the United States on May 20, the day of Zelenskyy’s inauguration. Yovanovitch continues to work for the State Department.
“Would you think he [Trump] was abusing the power of his office? And if you would, it shouldn’t matter that it wasn’t you,” Schiff continued. “It shouldn’t matter that it was Marie Yovanovitch. It shouldn’t matter that it was Joe Biden. Because I’ll tell you something; The next time, it just may be you.”
Schiff warned that Trump likely wouldn’t be loyal to his own Republican allies in the Senate if it didn’t benefit him.
“Do you think for a moment, no matter what your relationship with this president, no matter how close you are to this president, do you think for a moment that if he felt it was in his interest, he wouldn’t ask you to be investigated?” Schiff said.
“If somewhere deep down below, you realize that he would, you cannot leave a man like that in office when he has violated the Constitution. It shouldn’t matter that it was Joe Biden. It could have been any of us. It may be any of us,” he said.
Schiff later added, referring to the elder Biden: “Yes, he’s running for president. He’s still a U.S. citizen, and he deserves better than that.”
2. Attack on American Character
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump’s conduct represented an assault on the character of the country.
“There’s a toxic mess at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and I humbly suggest that it’s our collective job on behalf of the American people to try to clean it up,” Jeffries said. “President Trump tried to cheat. He got caught, and then he worked hard to cover it up.”
Jeffries went so far as to talk about impeachment in the context of the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, the Jim Crow era, and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“America is a great country. We can handle adversity better than any other nation in the world, but what are we going to do about our character?” Jeffries asked, adding:
President Trump tried to cheat and solicit foreign interference in an American election. That is an attack on our character. President Trump abused his power and corrupted the highest office in the land. That is an attack on our character. President Trump tried to cover it all up and hide it from the American people and obstruct Congress. That’s an extraordinary attack on our character.
Schiff later made a similar point.
“You don’t realize how important character is in the highest office in the land until you don’t have it, until you have a president willing to use his power to coerce an ally to help him cheat, to investigate one of our fellow citizens,” Schiff said.
3. President Disparaged as ‘Dictator’
Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., an impeachment manager who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called Trump “a dictator” who must be removed for not cooperating with the House’s impeachment inquiry.
“President Trump is an outlier. He’s the first and only president to declare himself unaccountable and to ignore subpoenas backed by the Constitution’s impeachment power,” Nadler said, adding:
If he is not removed from office, if he is permitted to defy the Congress entirely, categorically, to say that subpoenas from Congress in an impeachment inquiry are nonsense, then we will have lost, the House will have lost, the Senate certainly will have lost, all power to hold any president accountable.
Nadler, not mentioning that House Democrats didn’t try to enforce their subpoenas through the courts, also said:
This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to be all powerful. He does not have to respect the Congress. He does not have to respect the representatives of the people. Only his will goes. He is a dictator. This must not stand. That is another reason he must be removed from office.
4. Military Consequences
Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., a former Army Ranger, pushed that military role in buttressing Democrats’ national security argument.
“This defense would be laughable if this issue wasn’t so serious,” Crow said on the Senate floor, in anticipation of an argument the president’s lawyers will make. “No, the delay wasn’t meaningless. Just ask the Ukrainians sitting in trenches now.”
Crow suggested that former national security adviser John Bolton, who Democrats want as a witness in the trial, might have quit because of the hold on aid to Ukraine.
“Ambassador Bolton could shed light on that himself if he were to testify,” Crow said.
Schiff also noted, while on the Senate floor, the huge reliance Ukraine had on the United States, which provides 10% of the country’s military budget.
“Withholding aid has real consequences on real soldiers and their families,” Schiff said, adding the hold only “emboldened Russia.”
Trump ultimately followed through on military aid to Ukraine to defend itself from Russia, while President Barack Obama did not, Trump’s defenders note.
5. Drawing Roberts Into Case
Chief Justice John Roberts is presiding over the trial, as is his constitutional duty. Going back to his confirmation hearing, Roberts generally has said he only calls balls and strikes.
However, on Friday, Schiff broached the subject of having Roberts make the final decision on calling witnesses. Most reports indicate the 45 Senate Democrats and two independents will have a tough time getting four Republicans to join them for a majority to vote for calling witnesses.
Schiff cited Senate precedent from the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, which ended in acquittal. In that trial, Chief Justice Salmon Chase cast a tie-breaking vote.
“We have a very capable justice sitting in that Senate chamber empowered by the Senate rules to decide issues of evidence and privilege,” Schiff told reporters. “So if any of these witnesses have a colorable claim that they wish to make or the president on their behalf, we have a justice that is able to make those determinations.”
6. Prepping for Trump Lawyers
Crow said he was anticipating the arguments of the president’s defense team, set to begin Saturday.
“Now since we won’t have an opportunity to respond to the president’s presentation, I want to take a minute to respond to some of the arguments that I expect them to make,” Crow said.
The Colorado Democrat said the president’s lawyers likely will say that Ukraine eventually got the $391 million in security assistance from the U.S.
“Regardless of whether the aid was ultimately released, the fact that the hold became public sent a very important signal to Russia that our support was wavering,” Crow said. “The damage was done.”
Crow warned senators that the Trump defense team will “cherry-pick” evidence and advised: “Don’t be fooled.”
Ukraine received the $391 million in military aid only after news broke of a whistleblower complaint about the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, he said.
“The scheme was unraveling. He only released it after he got caught,” Crow said of Trump.
Schiff dismissed the often-repeated line from Trump defenders that the president had sought to address corruption in Ukraine before delivering the aid.
“He was not trying to end corruption in Ukraine,” Schiff said. “He was trying to aim corruption in Ukraine at Joe Biden.”
7. Making the Case for Obstruction
Trump’s refusal to cooperate with impeachment investigators could set a dangerous precedent, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., told senators, in arguing for removing the president from office for obstruction of Congress.
“All presidents after him with have veto power over Congress’ ability to conduct oversight and the power of impeachment,” Lofgren said.
“The House was not prepared to accept that, and that’s why the House approved Article 2,” she said, referring to the House’s second article of impeachment.
Lofgren was a member of the House Judiciary Committee during the 1998 impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton and a congressional staffer during the 1974 impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon.
Over two days of arguments, the seven House impeachment managers prosecuted the case for abuse of power against Trump. The first three hours of Friday’s proceedings closed out their arguments for that first article of impeachment.
Just before 5 p.m., Democrats began arguing that the Senate should remove Trump from office for obstruction of Congress, charging that the president didn’t cooperate with the House’s impeachment investigation.
The House sent several subpoenas during the investigation. Cipollone, the White House counsel, wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in October saying that the White House would not provide any documents or witnesses.
The letter asserted that the impeachment investigation was an attempt both to overturn the results of the 2016 election and to influence the outcome of the 2020 contest.
Republicans, criticizing the second impeachment article, say House Democrats didn’t even attempt to enforce their subpoenas in court.
The House subpoenaed White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and various other officials, but not Bolton.
Still, Lofgren accused Trump of ordering nine witnesses to defy House subpoenas.
“In the history of our republic, no president ever dared to issue an order to prevent even a single government witness from testifying in an impeachment inquiry,” Lofgren said.
“President Trump abused the power of his office by using his official power in an attempt to prevent every single person who works in the executive branch from testifying before the House,” she said.
In fact, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which led the investigation, identified 17 current and former Trump administration officials who either were deposed behind closed doors or gave public testimony.
Trump made no attempt to cooperate with the House investigation, said Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, a former state judge.
“At President Trump’s order, agencies and offices refused to produce documents in response to the committee’s request,” Garcia said. “They refused to allow individual witnesses to do so either.”
“So let’s recap. No documents. Zero, goose eggs, nada, in response to over 70 requests and five subpoenas.”
Garcia continued:
No attempt to negotiate. No genuine attempt to accommodate. Categorial, indiscriminate, and unprecedented stonewalling. Again, never in my time as a lawyer or as a judge have I seen this kind of total disrespect and defiance of a lawfully issued subpoena, and all on President Trump’s orders.
This report was updated to include later developments.


dailysignal--2020-01-25--5 Big Points by Trump’s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial

President Donald Trump ’ s lawyers took the Senate floor Saturday morning to open their defense in his impeachment trial , wrapping up their initial arguments within two hours .
The defense ’ s opening presentation was unusually brief after House Democrats ’ impeachment managers stretched for about eight hours on each of three days .
Trump ’ s lawyers have Monday and Tuesday to finish their defense , as each side gets three days and up to 24 hours to make their cases to senators .
The House ’ s seven impeachment managers , urging the Senate to remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about three hours of their allotted time .
Trump weighed in on Twitter well after the Senate adjourned shortly after noon .
Here are five highlights from the opening arguments of the president ’ s lawyers .
The Democrat-controlled House impeached Trump in December , alleging he abused his power and obstructed Congress in connection with his July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy .
In the call , the two men briefly discussed Trump ’ s interest in Zelenskyy ’ s investigating possible Ukrainian interference in the U.S. presidential election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son , Hunter Biden .
House Democrats allege that Trump used the power of his office to solicit Ukraine to interfere in the U.S. presidential election in 2020 .
White House counsel Pat Cipollone countered that it is Democrats ’ impeachment effort that seeks to “ perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history.
” “ They ’ re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot , ” Cipollone said .
If two-thirds of the Senate , or 67 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from office , they also may disqualify him from holding another federal office .
“ They ’ re asking you to do something that no Senate has ever done , and they ’ re asking you to do that with no evidence , and that ’ s wrong , ” Cipollone said .
Cipollone said Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of California , Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York , and the other five House impeachment managers “ hid evidence ” from the Senate .
In one example , the White House counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call , which shows that both leaders talked about “ burden-sharing ” in support of Ukraine by other European countries .
Cipollone said of the House managers : In 2016 , Biden , as vice president , threatened to withhold $ 1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the Eastern European nation fired Viktor Shokin , the state prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings .
Hunter Biden , the vice president ’ s son , held a high-paying job on the board of Burisma at the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s point man for Ukraine policy .
In his July 25 phone call with Zelenskyy , Trump said he would appreciate Ukraine ’ s investigating the matter along with Ukraine ’ s possible meddling in the 2016 U.S. election .
At the time , unknown to Zelenskyy , Trump had put a hold on $ 391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine to counter Russian aggression , which he would lift in September .
Deputy White House counsel Mike Purpura said the entire case put forward by House impeachment managers melts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key facts ” : Fourth , not a single witness testified that the president himself [ Trump ] said that there was any connection between any investigations in security assistance , a presidential meeting or anything else .
On the last point , numerous witnesses who testified at the House impeachment hearings made clear that they supported the Trump administration ’ s policy of providing lethal weapons to the Ukrainians to defend itself from Russia .
President Barack Obama ’ s administration had refused to provide such weaponry .
Zelenskyy and his aides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they did not believe the U.S. was pressuring them to begin investigations of Burisma and possible Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election , which the president ’ s lawyers were eager to note .
“ Of course , the best evidence that there was no pressure or quid pro quo is the statements of Ukrainians themselves , ” Purpura told senators .
“ The fact that President Zelenskyy himself felt no pressure on the call and did not perceive there to be any connection between security assistance and investigations would , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , be totally fatal to the prosecution .
“ The judge would throw it out , ” he said .
“ The case would be over .
What more do you need to know ?
” During their arguments , House members had told senators that , because of a power disparity , it was highly unlikely that Zelensky would challenge an assertion by Trump .
“ How do they try to overcome the direct words from President Zelenskyy and his administration that they felt no pressure ?
They tell you that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what they said , ” Purpura argued , adding : Jay Sekulow , one of Trump ’ s personal lawyers , later followed with a similar point about witnesses in the House impeachment hearings , most of whom declined to say , when asked , that they saw in the call a quid pro quo or a bribe .
“ This entire impeachment process is about the House managers ’ insistence that they are able to read everybody ’ s thoughts ; they can read everybody ’ s intentions , even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , insist that those interpretations are wrong , ” Sekulow said .
The president ’ s lawyers also asserted that Ukraine wasn ’ t aware that Trump had put a hold on the $ 391 million in congressionally approved military aid , and never broached the topic with U.S. officials until an Aug. 28 story appeared in Politico .
The article ran more than a month after the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy .
“ We know there was no quid pro quo on the call ; we know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ There couldn ’ t possibly have been a quid pro quo because the Ukrainians didn ’ t know the security assistance was on hold .
… There can ’ t be a threat without the person knowing he ’ s being threatened.
” Purpura played video of Democrat-called witnesses telling House members that they did not believe the Ukrainian government was aware that the U.S. aid was being held up until the news story appeared in late August .
“ The House managers are aware that the Ukrainians ’ lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their case , so they desperately tried to muddy the water , ” Purpura said .
During their presentation to the Senate , House Democrats pointed to an October press conference in which acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said the administration held up the money in part because it wanted Ukraine to investigate interference in the 2016 election .
Mulvaney said this concern didn ’ t include an investigation of the Bidens .
Responding to Democrats ’ repeated assertion that Trump wanted Zelenskyy to do him a favor , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the call , Purpura said : During his closing argument late Friday , Schiff asserted that Trump thinks that “ he is the state.
” Sekulow , who also representedTrump in the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign , addressed another Schiff comment from Friday .
Schiff asked senators to put themselves in the shoes of Joe Biden , and imagine that Trump had asked for Ukraine to investigate any one of them .
“ Let me begin by saying that you can not simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sekulow told senators .
“ Mr .
Schiff said yesterday , I believe it was his father who [ told him ] , you should put yourself in someone else ’ s shoes .
Let ’ s for a moment put ourselves in the shoes of the president of the United States right now.
” An FBI investigation of Trump for alleged conspiracy with Russia was underway before he was even elected , Sekulow said .
Then , a few months into his presidency , Mueller was named as special counsel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
Sekulow read a portion of the Mueller report clearing Trump and his campaign of any conspiracy or coordination with Russia to influence the 2016 election .
“ In their opening statement , several of the House managers tried once again to relitigate the Mueller case , ” he said .
Sekulow pointed out that the Mueller probe cost $ 32 million in taxpayers ’ money and included 2,800 subpoenas , 500 search warrants , and 500 witness interviews .
That investigation , he said , was predicated largely on what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined to be a faulty process of seeking a warrant to surveil a Trump campaign adviser , Carter Page .
“ The president had reason to be concerned about the information he was being provided , ” Sekulow said , referring to the FBI and other intelligence agencies .
“ Now we can ignore this .
We can make believe this did not happen .
But it did .
”

President Donald Trump’s lawyers took the Senate floor Saturday morning to open their defense in his impeachment trial, wrapping up their initial arguments within two hours.
The defense’s opening presentation was unusually brief after House Democrats’ impeachment managers stretched their arguments for about eight hours on each of three days.
Trump’s lawyers have Monday and Tuesday to finish their defense, as each side gets three days and up to 24 hours to make their cases to senators. The House’s seven impeachment managers, urging the Senate to remove Trump from office, used all but about three hours of their allotted time.
Trump weighed in on Twitter well after the Senate adjourned shortly after noon.
Any fair minded person watching the Senate trial today would be able to see how unfairly I have been treated and that this is indeed the totally partisan Impeachment Hoax that EVERYBODY, including the Democrats, truly knows it is. This should never be allowed to happen again! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2020
Here are five highlights from the opening arguments of the president’s lawyers.
1. ‘Massive Interference in an Election’
The Democrat-controlled House voted Dec. 18 to impeach Trump, alleging he abused his power and obstructed Congress in connection with his July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
In the call, the two men briefly discussed Trump’s interest in Zelenskyy’s investigating possible Ukrainian interference in the U.S. presidential election in 2016 as well as Ukrainian-related actions taken by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
House Democrats allege that Trump used the power of his office to solicit Ukraine to interfere in the U.S. presidential election in 2020.
White House counsel Pat Cipollone countered that it is Democrats’ impeachment effort that seeks to “perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history.”
“They’re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot,” Cipollone said.
If two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 senators, vote to remove a president from office, they also may disqualify him from holding another federal office.
“They’re asking you to do something that no Senate has ever done, and they’re asking you to do that with no evidence, and that’s wrong,” Cipollone said.
Cipollone said Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of California, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, and the other five House impeachment managers “hid evidence” from the Senate.
The White House counsel pointed to the official transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy call, ordered released by the president, which shows that both leaders talked about “burden-sharing” in support of Ukraine by other European countries.
Cipollone said of the House managers:
They come here to the Senate and they ask you [to] remove a president, tear up the ballots in all of your states, and they don’t bother to read the key evidence of the discussion of burden-sharing that’s in the call itself. Now, that’s emblematic of their entire presentation. They have the burden of proof. And they have not come close to meeting it.
2. Focus on ‘6 Key Facts’
In 2016, Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the Eastern European nation fired Viktor Shokin, the state prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.
Hunter Biden, the vice president’s son, held a high-paying job on the board of Burisma at the same time his father was the Obama administration’s point man for Ukraine policy.
In his July 25 phone call with Zelenskyy, Trump said he would appreciate Ukraine’s investigating the matter along with Ukraine’s possible meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
At the time, unknown to Zelenskyy, Trump had put a hold on $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to the former Soviet republic to counter Russian aggression, which he would lift in September.
Deputy White House counsel Mike Purpura said the entire case put forward by House impeachment managers melts under what he said were “six key facts”:
First, the transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. Second, President Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian officials repeatedly have said there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything. Third, President Zelenskyy and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know the security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call. Fourth, not a single witness testified that the president himself [Trump] said that there was any connection between any investigations in security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else. Fifth, the security assistance flowed on Sept. 11 and a presidential meeting took place on Sept. 25 [at the United Nations] without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations. Finally, the Democrats’ blind drive to impeach the president does not and cannot change the fact, as attested to by the Democrats’ own witnesses, that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor.
On the last point, numerous witnesses who testified at the House impeachment hearings made clear that they supported the Trump administration’s policy of providing lethal weapons to Ukraine to defend itself from Russia.
President Barack Obama’s administration had refused to provide such weaponry.
3. ‘Claiming to Be Mind Readers’
Zelenskyy and his aides in Ukraine have said on several occasions that they did not believe the U.S. was pressuring them to begin investigations of Burisma and possible Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, which the president’s lawyers were eager to note.
“Of course, the best evidence that there was no pressure or quid pro quo is the statements of Ukrainians themselves,” Purpura told senators. “The fact that President Zelenskyy himself felt no pressure on the call and did not perceive there to be any connection between security assistance and investigations would, in any ordinary case in any court, be totally fatal to the prosecution.”
“The judge would throw it out,” he said. “The case would be over. What more do you need to know?”
During their arguments, House members had told senators that, because of a power disparity, it was highly unlikely that Zelensky would challenge an assertion by Trump.
Purpura dismissed this idea Saturday.
“How do they try to overcome the direct words from President Zelenskyy and his administration that they felt no pressure? They tell you that the Ukrainians must have felt pressure, regardless of what they said,” Purpura argued, adding:
They try to overcome the devastating evidence against them by apparently claiming to be mind readers. They know what’s in President Zelenskyy’s mind better than President Zelenskyy does. President Zelenskyy said he felt no pressure. The House managers tell you they know better.
This is really a theme of the House case. Every time the Democrats say that President Trump made demands or issued a quid pro quo to Zelenskyy on the July 25 call, they are saying that President Zelenskyy and his top advisers are being untruthful.
Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal lawyers, later followed with a similar point about witnesses in the House impeachment hearings, most of whom declined to say, when asked, that they saw in the call a quid pro quo or a bribe.
“This entire impeachment process is about the House managers’ insistence that they are able to read everybody’s thoughts; they can read everybody’s intentions, even when the principal speakers, the witnesses themselves, insist that those interpretations are wrong,” Sekulow said.
He said it is well known that Trump is suspicious of foreign aid, noting that the president also reviewed or held up aid to Afghanistan, South Korea, and Pakistan, among other nations.
4. Ukraine Unaware of Hold on Aid
The president’s lawyers also asserted that Ukraine wasn’t aware that Trump had put a hold on the $391 million in military aid, and never broached the topic with U.S. officials until an Aug. 28 story appeared in Politico.
The article ran more than a month after the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy.
“We know there was no quid pro quo on the call; we know that from the transcript,” Purpura said. “There couldn’t possibly have been a quid pro quo because the Ukrainians didn’t know the security assistance was on hold. … There can’t be a threat without the person knowing he’s being threatened.”
Purpura played video of Democrat-called witnesses telling House members that they did not believe the Ukrainian government was aware that the U.S. aid was being held up until the news story appeared in late August.
“The House managers are aware that the Ukrainians’ lack of knowledge on the hold is fatal to their case, so they desperately tried to muddy the water,” Purpura said.
During their presentation to the Senate, House Democrats pointed to an October press conference in which acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said the administration held up the money in part because it wanted Ukraine to investigate interference in the 2016 election. Mulvaney said this concern didn’t include an investigation of the Bidens.
Responding to Democrats’ repeated assertion that Trump wanted Zelenskyy to do him a favor, and pointing again to the official transcript of the call, Purpura said:
As everyone knows by now, President Trump asked President Zelenskyy to do ‘us’ a favor. And he made clear that ‘us’ referred to our country, and not himself. … There was no mention of the paused security assistance on the call, and certainly not from President Trump.
During his closing argument late Friday, Schiff asserted that Trump thinks that “he is the state.”
5. ‘Relitigate the Mueller Case’
Sekulow, who also represented Trump in the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign, addressed another Schiff comment from Friday.
Schiff asked senators to put themselves in the shoes of Joe Biden, and imagine that Trump had asked for Ukraine to investigate any one of them.
“Let me begin by saying that you cannot simply decide this case in a vacuum,” Sekulow told senators. “Mr. Schiff said yesterday, I believe it was his father who [told him], you should put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Let’s for a moment put ourselves in the shoes of the president of the United States right now.”
An FBI investigation of Trump for alleged conspiracy with Russia was underway before he was even elected, Sekulow said. Then, a few months into his presidency, Mueller was named as special counsel and investigated the Russian matter for about two years.
Sekulow read a portion of the Mueller report clearing Trump and his campaign of any conspiracy or coordination with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
“In their opening statement, several of the House managers tried once again to relitigate the Mueller case,” he said.
Sekulow pointed out that the Mueller probe cost $32 million in taxpayers’ money and included 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, and 500 witness interviews.
That investigation, he said, was predicated largely on what the Justice Department’s inspector general later determined to be a faulty FBI process of seeking a warrant to surveil a Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page.
“The president had reason to be concerned about the information he was being provided,” Sekulow said, referring to the FBI and other intelligence agencies. “Now we can ignore this. We can make believe this did not happen. But it did.”
Democrats were making a “straw man argument,” he said:
The House managers over a 23-hour period kept pushing this false dichotomy that it was either Russia or Ukraine [that interfered in the 2016 election], but not both. They kept telling you the conclusion of the intelligence community and Mr. Mueller was Russia alone [meddled], with regard to the 2016 elections. The report Bob Mueller wrote was on Russia interference, although there is some information [there] in letters regarding Ukraine.
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.


dailysignal--2020-01-28--Under Bolton Shadow, 6 Big Moments From Day 6 of Trump Impeachment Trial

President Donald Trump ’ s lawyers hit the Senate floor Monday for the second day of defense arguments in his impeachment trial , amid what Democrats called a bombshell from a forthcoming book by the president ’ s former national security adviser , John Bolton .
The Bolton book wasn ’ t a direct topic during the arguments .
But the president ’ s lawyers addressed the underlying allegation that Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine for weeks to pressure the former Soviet republic to investigate dealings there by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son , Hunter Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made their strongest case yet as to why Trump had reason to inquire about the Bidens and Burisma , the Ukrainian energy company where the younger Biden had a lucrative job from 2016 to 2019 .
Democrats ’ allegation that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by putting a hold on the $ 391 million in aid was the basis for the House ’ s Dec. 18 impeachment of the president on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—neither of which are federal crimes .
Here are highlights from the sixth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in which House Democrats are asking the Senate to convict Trump and remove him from office .
The New York Times reported Sunday that Bolton ’ s upcoming book will say Trump told his national security adviser that he would keep a hold on military aid to Ukraine until that country investigated the Bidens ’ dealings there .
Portions of the Bolton book apparently were leaked to the Times .
The White House has had a copy of the book since Dec. 30 for a national security review and clearance .
Titled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A White House Memoir , ” the book is set to be released March 17 .
Trump responded shortly after midnight on Twitter , asserting at one point early Monday : “ I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats , including the Bidens .
In fact , he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination .
If John Bolton said this , it was only to sell a book.
” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer had a far different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convened for the impeachment trial at 1 p.m. “ This is stunning .
It goes right to the charges against the president .
Ambassador Bolton essentially confirms the president committed the offenses charged in the first article of impeachment , ” Schumer told reporters , adding : Schumer said the excerpt of Bolton ’ s book is evidence of a widespread cover-up and shows the need to call acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney as a witness at the impeachment trial .
“ There seems to be a giant cover-up among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House who knew and said nothing about it , let alone tried to stop it , ” Schumer said , later adding : “ If Senate Republicans are not going to vote to call Mr. Bolton and Mr. Mulvaney and the other witnesses now , if they are not going to ask for notes and emails , they are going to be part of the cover-up too .
We have this out in the open .
It ’ s up to just four Senate Republicans [ to join Democrats in voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A few minutes later , during an arrival ceremony Monday for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House South Portico , Trump took a question about whether the manuscript of Bolton ’ s book would make it more likely his former national security adviser would testify to the Senate .
“ I haven ’ t seen the manuscript , but I can tell you nothing was ever said to John Bolton.
” Trump said .
“ But I have not seen a manuscript.
” Rep. Doug Collins , R-Ga. , ranking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told reporters that the Senate shouldn ’ t be distracted from the defense of the president being presented Monday .
“ Do not get distracted by the shiny objects of saying ‘ We need witnesses ’ or Bolton ’ s new manuscript or anything else , ” Collins said .
“ Don ’ t lose sight of the fact that the facts haven ’ t changed.
” The Senate is expected to vote on witnesses Friday .
The president ’ s lawyers hit back both directly and indirectly on the Bolton manuscript .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise to the level of an abuse of power or impeachable offense , ” said Alan Dershowitz , a Harvard law professor and Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 , but is now part of the Trump legal team .
“ That is clear from the history , that is clear from the language of the Constitution , ” Dershowitz said , adding : Other lawyers tackled the underlying allegation that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens—as well as possible Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election—in exchange for getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security assistance .
“ The president wasn ’ t ‘ caught , ’ as the House managers allege .
The managers are wrong , ” deputy White House counsel Mike Purpura said .
“ All of this , together with what we discussed on Saturday , demonstrates that there was no connection between security assistance and investigations.
” This assertion appeared to take on directly news reports of what a section of the Bolton book will say .
Trump ’ s personal lawyer , Jay Sekulow , didn ’ t address the Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ microphone .
But he did argue that Trump was acting within his rights as president .
“ It is our position as president ’ s counsel that the president was at all times acting under his constitutional authority , under his legal authority , in the national interests pursuant to his oath of office , ” Sekulow told senators .
“ Asking a foreign leader to get to the bottom of issues of corruption is not a violation of an oath , ” he said .
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , laid out a timeline for potential conflicts of interest entangling Joe Biden , who oversaw the Obama administration ’ s Ukraine policy , and his son , Hunter Biden , who held a lucrative seat on the board of Burisma , the Ukrainian energy company .
“ The United Kingdom ’ s Serious Frauds Office opens a money laundering investigation into the oligarch [ Mykola ] Zlochevsky and his company , Burisma , ” Bondi said .
“ The very next month , April 2014 , according to a public report , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burisma .
Remember , early 2014 was when Vice President Biden began leading Ukraine policy.
” Bondi noted that public records show the younger Biden ’ s business partner Devon Archer , also a Burisma board member , met with the elder Biden at the White House two days before the company announced Hunter Biden had joined the board .
“ Not even 10 days after Hunter Biden joins the board , British authorities seize $ 3 million in British bank accounts connected to the oligarch Zlochevsky , the owner of Burisma , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , Biden , as vice president , threatened to withhold $ 1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the Eastern European nation fired Viktor Shokin , the state prosecutor who was investigating Burisma while Biden ’ s son was on the board .
Bondi noted that news coverage of the appearance of a conflict over the younger Biden ’ s employment in Ukraine began to pop up in 2014 .
She read from news clips from The Washington Post , The New York Times , and The New Yorker , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News about Hunter Biden ’ s seat on the Burisma board .
Hunter Biden , Bondi said , was paid “ significantly more ” than most members of corporate boards before leaving Burisma in October 2019 .
“ Hunter Biden [ was ] paid over $ 83,000 a month , while the average American family of four during that time each year made less than $ 54,000 , ” Bondi said , adding : Bondi also showed a clip of Obama press secretary Jay Carney getting a question about Hunter Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a later clip of the younger Biden being asked in a TV interview whether he would have gotten the job on the board if his last name weren ’ t Biden .
“ I don ’ t know , probably not , ” he responds .
Bondi referred to the House Intelligence Committee ’ s impeachment hearings , which Rep. Adam Schiff , one of the House impeachment managers , chaired .
“ Every witness who was asked about Hunter Biden ’ s involvement with Burisma agreed there was a potential appearance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
She read the portion of the official transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy call that pertained to the Bidens .
She then referred to House prosecutors ’ claim that any suspicions about the Bidens and Burisma had been “ debunked.
” “ The House managers talked about 400 times , but they never gave you the full picture , ” Bondi said , adding : Eric Herschmann , one of Trump ’ s private lawyers on the team , also questioned whether impeachment was a means to distract from the Biden conflict .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing on the Ukraine matter , Schiff , D-Calif. , who is leading the House impeachment managers , mischaracterized the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call and when criticized for it , called it a parody .
During his presentation to the Senate , Herschmann was not going to let the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee off easily .
“ Remember the fake transcript that manager Schiff read when he was before the Intelligence Committee ?
” Herschmann asked seantors .
“ His mob , gangster-like fake rendition of the call ?
” “ Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years , ” Herschmann said .
“ The type of description of what goes on , what House manager Schiff tried to create for the American people , is completely detached from reality.
” Ken Starr , whose investigation as independent counsel led to the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton , gave a mixture of a law professor ’ s lecture and a warning of what the power of impeachment has wrought .
“ Like war , impeachment is hell , or at least presidential impeachment is hell , ” Starr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial .
Starr noted that this was not the first House resolution of impeachment against Trump , only the first to pass .
Rep. Al Green , D-Texas , pushed three impeachment resolutions to a floor vote , all of which were defeated .
Other Democrats pushed an impeachment resolution that never came to a vote .
Rep. Maxine Waters , D-Calif. , began in 2017 to promote the “ Impeach 45 ” movement .
Most of the seven House impeachment managers , or prosecutors , supported either impeaching Trump or beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the call with Ukraine ’ s leader that prompted the current case .
“ We are living in what can aptly be described as the age of impeachment , ” Starr said , adding : Starr said impeachment should be a “ very important protection against serious wrongdoing.
” Despite having brought the case against Clinton that led to his acquittal , Starr said : “ Presidents are to serve out their terms unless there is a national consensus for their removal.
” In 1998 , Starr was operating under the now-expired independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submit a report to Congress .
During his impeachment trial , Clinton was in his second term as president with another two years remaining , and would not face voters again for that office .
By contrast , voters can hold Trump accountable when he seeks reelection in November 2020 .
“ There is a huge prudential factor that this trial is occurring in an election year , when we the people in a matter of months will go to the polls , ” Starr said .
Both of the articles of impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ dripping with process violations ” in the House ’ s case .
Starr said the type of case the House has brought against Trump would be thrown out of court .
“ The Constitution speaks in terms of establishing justice .
Courts would not allow this , ” Starr said .
“ Because why ?
They knew and they know that the purpose of our founding instrument is to protect our founding liberties , to safeguard us as individuals against the powers of government.
” Starr argued that the second article of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is evidence of a “ runaway House.
” “ If there is a dispute between the people ’ s House and the president of the United States over the availability of documents or witnesses , and there is in each and every administration—then go to court , ” Starr said .
“ It really is as simple as that.
” Before his legal team resumed its case Monday morning , Trump sent several tweets .
But he mostly retweeted during the arguments .
At one point , Trump inquired why Schiff , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t made public the full transcript of testimony by Michael Atkinson , the intelligence community ’ s inspector general , to the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors .
Atkinson took the anonymous whistleblower ’ s complaint that arose out of Trump ’ s July 25 phone call to Ukraine ’ s president .
Later , the president gave a programming note to his Twitter followers : Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes : 5 Big Points by Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial What to Know About Democrats ’ 7 Impeachment Managers

President Donald Trump’s lawyers hit the Senate floor Monday for the second day of defense arguments in his impeachment trial, amid what Democrats called a bombshell from a forthcoming book by the president’s former national security adviser, John Bolton.
The Bolton book wasn’t a direct topic during the arguments. But the president’s lawyers addressed the underlying allegation that Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine for weeks to pressure the former Soviet republic to investigate dealings there by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
The president’s lawyers also made their strongest case yet as to why Trump had reason to inquire about the Bidens and Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company where the younger Biden had a lucrative job from 2014 to 2019.
Democrats’ allegation that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by putting a hold on the $391 million in aid was the basis for the House’s Dec. 18 impeachment of the president on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—neither of which is a federal crime.
Here are highlights from the sixth full day of the Senate impeachment trial, in which House Democrats are asking the Senate to convict Trump and remove him from office.
1. Bolton Book Fallout
The New York Times reported Sunday that Bolton’s upcoming book will say Trump told his national security adviser that he would keep a hold on military aid to Ukraine until that country investigated the Bidens’ dealings there.
Portions of the Bolton book apparently were leaked to the Times. The White House has had a copy of the book since Dec. 30 for a national security review and clearance.
Titled “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” the book is set to be released March 17.
Trump responded shortly after midnight on Twitter, asserting at one point early Monday: “I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.”
I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the… — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020
…(Democrats said I never met) and released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations – and far ahead of schedule. I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles. My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer had a far different take Monday morning, before the Senate convened for the impeachment trial at 1 p.m.
“This is stunning. It goes right to the charges against the president. Ambassador Bolton essentially confirms the president committed the offenses charged in the first article of impeachment,” Schumer told reporters, adding:
It boils down to one thing. We have first-hand evidence of the president’s actions for which he is on trial. [Bolton] is ready and willing to testify. How can Senate Republicans not vote to call that witness and request his documents? Anyone, anyone who says the House case lacks witnesses and then votes to prevent eyewitnesses from testifying is talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Schumer said the excerpt of Bolton’s book is evidence of a widespread cover-up and shows the need to call acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney as a witness at the impeachment trial.
“There seems to be a giant cover-up among so many of the leading people in the White House who knew and said nothing about it, let alone tried to stop it,” Schumer said, later adding: “If Senate Republicans are not going to vote to call Mr. Bolton and Mr. Mulvaney and the other witnesses now, if they are not going to ask for notes and emails, they are going to be part of the cover-up too. We have this out in the open. It’s up to just four Senate Republicans [to join Democrats in voting to hear from witnesses].”
A few minutes later, during an arrival ceremony Monday for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House South Portico, Trump took a question about whether the manuscript of Bolton’s book would make it more likely his former national security adviser would testify to the Senate.
“I haven’t seen the manuscript, but I can tell you nothing was ever said to John Bolton.” Trump said. “But I have not seen a manuscript.”
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters that the Senate shouldn’t be distracted from the defense of the president being presented Monday.
“Do not get distracted by the shiny objects of saying ‘We need witnesses’ or Bolton’s new manuscript or anything else,” Collins said. “Don’t lose sight of the fact that the facts haven’t changed.”
The Senate is expected to vote on witnesses Friday.
2. ‘Acting Under Constitutional Authority’
The president’s lawyers hit back both directly and indirectly on the Bolton manuscript.
“Nothing in the Bolton manuscript would rise to the level of an abuse of power or impeachable offense,” said Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but is now part of the Trump legal team.
“That is clear from the history, that is clear from the language of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said, adding:
You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachment into impeachable conduct simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit. It is inconceivable that the framers [of the Constitution] would have intended so politically loaded and promiscuously deployed a term as ‘abuse of power’ to be weaponized as a tool of impeachment. It is precisely the kind of vague, open-ended, and suggestive term that the framers feared and rejected.
Other lawyers tackled the underlying allegation that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens—as well as possible Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election—in exchange for getting the $391 million in congressionally approved security assistance.
“The president wasn’t ‘caught,’ as the House managers allege. The managers are wrong,” deputy White House counsel Mike Purpura said. “All of this, together with what we discussed on Saturday, demonstrates that there was no connection between security assistance and investigations.”
This assertion appeared to take on directly news reports of what a section of the Bolton book will say.
Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, didn’t address the Bolton book at all when he took the microphone. But he did argue that Trump was acting within his rights as president.
“It is our position as president’s counsel that the president was at all times acting under his constitutional authority, under his legal authority, in the national interests pursuant to his oath of office,” Sekulow told senators.
“Asking a foreign leader to get to the bottom of issues of corruption is not a violation of an oath,” he said.
3. The Bidens and Burisma
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, now on Trump’s defense team, laid out a timeline for potential conflicts of interest entangling Joe Biden, who oversaw the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, and his son, Hunter Biden, who held a lucrative seat on the board of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company.
“The United Kingdom’s Serious Frauds Office opens a money laundering investigation into the oligarch [Mykola] Zlochevsky and his company, Burisma,” Bondi said. “The very next month, April 2014, according to a public report, Hunter Biden quietly joints the board of Burisma. Remember, early 2014 was when Vice President Biden began leading Ukraine policy.”
Bondi noted that public records show the younger Biden’s business partner Devon Archer, also a Burisma board member, met with the elder Biden at the White House two days before the company announced Hunter Biden had joined the board.
“Not even 10 days after Hunter Biden joins the board, British authorities seize $23 million in British bank accounts connected to the oligarch Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma,” she said, adding:
Did Hunter Biden leave the board then? No. The British authorities had also announced that it had started a criminal investigation into potential money laundering. Then, only then, did the company choose to announce that Hunter Biden had joined the board.
In 2016, Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the Eastern European nation fired Viktor Shokin, the state prosecutor who was investigating Burisma while Biden’s son was on the board.
Bondi noted that news coverage of the appearance of a conflict over the younger Biden’s employment in Ukraine began to pop up in 2014. She read from news clips from The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The New Yorker, and showed part of a story from ABC News about Hunter Biden’s seat on the Burisma board.
Hunter Biden, Bondi said, was paid “significantly more” than most members of corporate boards before leaving Burisma in October 2019.
“Hunter Biden [was] paid over $83,000 a month, while the average American family of four during that time each year made less than $54,000,” Bondi said, adding:
Hunter Biden had no experience in natural gas, no experience in the energy sector, no experience with Ukrainian regulatory affairs. As far as we know, he doesn’t speak Ukrainian. So naturally, the media has asked questions about his board membership.
Bondi also showed a clip of Obama press secretary Jay Carney getting a question about Hunter Biden’s role on the Burisma board, and a later clip of the younger Biden being asked in a TV interview whether he would have gotten the job on the board if his last name weren’t Biden. “I don’t know, probably not,” he responds.
Bondi referred to the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings, which Rep. Adam Schiff, one of the House impeachment managers, chaired.
“Every witness who was asked about Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma agreed there was a potential appearance of a conflict of interest,” she said.
She read the portion of the official transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy call that pertained to the Bidens. She then referred to House prosecutors’ claim that any suspicions about the Bidens and Burisma had been “debunked.”
“The House managers talked about 400 times, but they never gave you the full picture,” Bondi said, adding:
Here are those who did: The United Kingdom Serious Fraud Unit, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent … “ABC Good Morning America,” The Washington Post, The New York Times, Ukrainian law enforcement, and the Obama State Department itself. They all thought there was cause to raise the issue about the Bidens and Burisma. … You’ve heard from the House managers. They do not believe that there was any concern to raise here, that all of this was baseless. All we are saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue, and that was enough.
Eric Herschmann, one of Trump’s private lawyers on the team, also questioned whether impeachment was a means to distract from the Biden conflict.
The House managers say that President Zelenskyy did not want to get mixed up in U.S. politics, but it precisely the Democrats who politicized the issue. Last August, they began circling the wagons trying to protect Vice President Biden and they are still doing it in these proceedings. They contend that any investigation into the millions of dollars in payments by a corrupt Ukraine company, owned by a corrupt Ukraine oligarch, to the son of the second highest officeholder in our land, who was supposed to be in charge of fighting corruption in Ukraine, they are calling that kind of inquiry a sham, debunked. But there has never been an investigation. So how can it be a sham? Simply because the House managers say so?
4. Schiff’s ‘Mob, Gangster-Like Fake Rendition’
In September, at the first public hearing on the Ukraine matter, Schiff, D-Calif., who is leading the House impeachment managers, mischaracterized the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call and when criticized for it, called it a parody.
During his presentation to the Senate, Herschmann was not going to let the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee off easily.
“Remember the fake transcript that manager Schiff read when he was before the Intelligence Committee?” Herschmann asked seantors. “His mob, gangster-like fake rendition of the call?”
“Well, I’ve prosecuted organized crime for years,” Herschmann said. “The type of description of what goes on, what House manager Schiff tried to create for the American people, is completely detached from reality.”
He continued:
It is as if we are to believe that mobsters would invite people they do not know into an organized crime meeting to sit around and take notes to establish the corrupt intent. Manager Schiff, our jobs as prosecutors—I know you were one—would have been a lot easier if that were how it worked. Think about what he is saying. Think about the managers’ position. That our president decided with corrupt intent to shake down—in their words—another foreign leader. And he decided to do it in front of everyone in a documented conversation in the presence of people he didn’t even know just so he could get this personal benefit that was not in our country’s best interest. The logic is flawed. It is completely illogical, because that is not what happened. That is why manager Schiff ran away from the actual transcript. That is why he created his own fake conversation.
5. Ken Starr’s Warning and History Lesson
Ken Starr, whose investigation as independent counsel led to the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, gave a mixture of a law professor’s lecture and a warning of what the power of impeachment has wrought.
“Like war, impeachment is hell, or at least presidential impeachment is hell,” Starr told senators, sitting as jurors in the trial.
Starr noted that this was not the first House resolution of impeachment against Trump, only the first to pass.
Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, pushed three impeachment resolutions to a floor vote, all of which were defeated. Other Democrats pushed an impeachment resolution that never came to a vote.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., began in 2017 to promote the “Impeach 45” movement.
Most of the seven House impeachment managers, or prosecutors, supported either impeaching Trump or beginning an impeachment inquiry against him long before the call with Ukraine’s leader that prompted the current case.
“We are living in what can aptly be described as the age of impeachment,” Starr said, adding:
In the House, resolution after resolution, month after month, has called for the president’s impeachment. How did we get here? With presidential impeachment invoked frequently in its inherently destabilizing as well as acrimonious way. Presidential impeachment has become a weapon to be wielded against one’s political opponent.
Starr said impeachment should be a “very important protection against serious wrongdoing.”
Despite having brought the case against Clinton that led to his acquittal, Starr said: “Presidents are to serve out their terms unless there is a national consensus for their removal.”
In 1998, Starr was operating under the now-expired independent counsel law that required the prosecutor to submit a report to Congress.
During his impeachment trial, Clinton was in his second term as president with another two years remaining, and would not face voters again for that office. By contrast, voters can hold Trump accountable when he seeks reelection in November 2020.
“There is a huge prudential factor that this trial is occurring in an election year, when we the people in a matter of months will go to the polls,” Starr said.
Both of the articles of impeachment against Trump, he said, are “dripping with process violations” in the House’s case.
Starr said the type of case the House has brought against Trump would be thrown out of court.
“The Constitution speaks in terms of establishing justice. Courts would not allow this,” Starr said. “Because why? They knew and they know that the purpose of our founding instrument is to protect our founding liberties, to safeguard us as individuals against the powers of government.”
Starr argued that the second article of impeachment, alleging obstruction of Congress, is evidence of a “runaway House.”
“If there is a dispute between the people’s House and the president of the United States over the availability of documents or witnesses, and there is in each and every administration—then go to court,” Starr said. “It really is as simple as that.”
6. Trump Program Notes and Other Reaction
Before his legal team resumed its case Monday morning, Trump sent several tweets. But he mostly retweeted during the arguments.
READ THE TRANSCRIPTS! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020
At one point, Trump inquired why Schiff, who is leading the impeachment managers, hasn’t made public the full transcript of testimony by Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general, to the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors.
Atkinson took the anonymous whistleblower’s complaint that arose out of Trump’s July 25 phone call to Ukraine’s president.
Schiff must release the IG report, without changes or tampering, which is said to be yet further exoneration of the Impeachment Hoax. He refuses to give it. Does it link him to Whistleblower? Why is he so adamant? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020
Later, the president gave a programming note to his Twitter followers:
Senate hearing on the Impeachment Hoax starts today at 1:00 P.M. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020
***
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report, which has been modified to correct the amount of Burisma-related assets seized by the United Kingdom.
Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes:
5 Big Points by Trump’s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial
7 Big Moments in Democrats’ Final Arguments to Remove Trump
7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Flash Points From Impeachment Trial’s Opening Arguments
What to Know About Democrats’ 7 Impeachment Managers


dailysignal--2020-01-29--Democracy Is Another Form of Tyranny

Democracy Is Another Form of Tyranny

During President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , we ’ ll hear a lot of talk about our rules for governing .
One frequent claim is that our nation is a democracy .
If we ’ ve become a democracy , it would represent a deep betrayal of our Founders , who saw democracy as another form of tyranny .
In fact , the word democracy appears nowhere in our nation ’ s two most fundamental documents , the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution .
The Founders laid the ground rules for a republic as written in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Section 4 , which guarantees “ to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
” John Adams captured the essence of the difference between a democracy and republic when he said , “ You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments ; rights that can not be repealed or restrained by human laws ; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.
” Contrast the framers ’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy .
In a democracy , the majority rules either directly or through its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the law is whatever the government determines it to be .
Laws do not represent reason .
They represent power .
The restraint is upon the individual instead of the government .
Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government , rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government .
Here are a few quotations that demonstrate the contempt that our Founders held for a democracy .
James Madison , in Federalist Paper No .
10 , wrote that in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.
” At the 1787 Constitutional Convention , Edmund Randolph said that “ in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.
” Alexander Hamilton agreed , saying : “ We are now forming a republican government .
[ Liberty ] is found not in “ the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments .
… If we incline too much to democracy , we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember , democracy never lasts long .
It soon wastes , exhausts , and murders itself .
There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
” John Marshall , the highly respected fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court , observed , “ Between a balanced republic and a democracy , the difference is like that between order and chaos.
” Thomas Paine said , “ A Democracy is the vilest form of Government there is.
” The framers gave us a Constitution replete with undemocratic mechanisms .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent criticism is the Electoral College .
In their wisdom , the framers gave us the Electoral College as a means of deciding presidential elections .
That means heavily populated states can ’ t run roughshod over small , less-populated states .
Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote , the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states , namely California , Texas , Florida , New York , Illinois , and Pennsylvania , which contain 134.3 million people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming , Alaska , Vermont , North Dakota , South Dakota , Montana , and Delaware .
Why ?
They have only 5.58 million Americans , or 1.7 % of the U.S. population .
We would no longer be a government “ of the people.
” Instead , our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states .
It would be the kind of tyranny the framers feared .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to our liberties .
The framers ’ distrust is seen in the negative language of our Bill of Rights such as : Congress “ shall not abridge , infringe , deny , disparage , and shall not be violated , nor be denied.
” When we die and if at our next destination we see anything like a Bill of Rights , we know that we ’ re in hell because a Bill of Rights in heaven would suggest that God couldn ’ t be trusted .

During President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, we’ll hear a lot of talk about our rules for governing. One frequent claim is that our nation is a democracy.
If we’ve become a democracy, it would represent a deep betrayal of our Founders, who saw democracy as another form of tyranny.
In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in our nation’s two most fundamental documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The Founders laid the ground rules for a republic as written in the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, which guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
John Adams captured the essence of the difference between a democracy and republic when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”
Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of the government.
Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.
Here are a few quotations that demonstrate the contempt that our Founders held for a democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, wrote that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that “in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
Alexander Hamilton agreed, saying: “We are now forming a republican government. [Liberty] is found not in “the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. … If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”
John Adams reminded us: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
John Marshall, the highly respected fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
Thomas Paine said, “A Democracy is the vilest form of Government there is.”
The framers gave us a Constitution replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One constitutional provision that has come in for recent criticism is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College as a means of deciding presidential elections. That means heavily populated states can’t run roughshod over small, less-populated states.
Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states, namely California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41% of our population.
Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7% of the U.S. population.
We would no longer be a government “of the people.” Instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states. It would be the kind of tyranny the framers feared.
It’s Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties. The framers’ distrust is seen in the negative language of our Bill of Rights such as: Congress “shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied.”
When we die and if at our next destination we see anything like a Bill of Rights, we know that we’re in hell because a Bill of Rights in heaven would suggest that God couldn’t be trusted.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM