January 20, 2020

"President Trump’s legal team will call on the Senate on Monday to 'swiftly reject' the impeachment charges and acquit him..."

"... maintaining that he committed no impeachable offense and has been the victim of an illegitimate partisan effort to take him down.... Mr. Trump’s lawyers plan to dismiss the largely party-line impeachment by the House as a 'brazenly political act' following a 'rigged process' that should be repudiated by the Senate, according to a person working with his legal team, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the submission of the trial brief.... The brief does not deny that Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine to announce investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., but argues that the president has the right to conduct relations with other countries as he sees fit and that he had valid reasons to raise those issues with Ukraine to fight corruption. The lawyers plan to dismiss the notion that doing so was an abuse of power, as outlined in the first article of impeachment, calling that a 'novel theory' and a 'newly invented' offense that would allow Congress to second-guess presidents for legitimate policy decisions. They will argue that the second article, accusing him of obstructing Congress by blocking testimony and refusing to turn over documents during the House impeachment inquiry, would violate separation of powers by invalidating a president’s right to confidential deliberations...."

Write Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman in the NYT this morning.

173 comments:

henry said...

fight farce with farce.

narciso said...


https://www.amgreatness.com/2020/01/19/lev-parnas-is-another-fake-bombshell/

Koot Katmandu said...

Well I have not heard any D say in one simple sentence what the High Crime or misdemeanor is? I certainly do not see one. So I think PDT defense is sound. It seems reasonable to ask Ukraine about the Hunter Biden gig and if they are not forthcoming way aid them.

narciso said...

more of the same garbage, the full schiff

Big Mike said...

"President Trump’s legal team will call on the Senate on Monday to 'swiftly reject' the impeachment charges and acquit him ... maintaining that he committed no impeachable offense and has been the victim of an illegitimate partisan effort to take him down....

Which of course is perfectly true.

Kevin said...

It doesn't really matter what the Republicans do.

If Trump is not convicted, the Dems will cry "coverup" and "whitewash".

The madness must be maintained such that the election can be stolen.

Beasts of England said...

Might as well get this round over so the Dems can proceed to their next fake impeachment spectacle. The schedule allows for two more hoaxes before the election.

Kevin said...

"President Trump’s legal team will call on the Senate on Monday to 'swiftly reject' the impeachment charges and acquit him..."

Now do the Democrats.

"The House Managers will call on the Senate on Monday to accept the overwhelming evidence of the charges against the President, while demanding additional witnesses be allowed to testify for the trail to be fair..."

Yes, I can see why they're not going to summarize their approach.

Kit Carson said...

well, how about that:
Mark Rothko paintings make great iPhone wallpapers
https://twitter.com/Harry1T6/status/1218653198845665280

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Where's the impeachment of corrupt liar Adam Schitt(D)?

Kevin said...

How can anyone watch Schumer and Pelosi play keystone cops and think, "Wow, those people need to be in charge of everything"?

How can people watch Warren and Sanders call each other liars and think, "Let those people restructure the healthcare system"?

They are all of a certain species, Boobus Politicalus, which should have gone extinct long ago were it not for their ability to write their own laws and dole out their own government subsidies.

Drago said...

Beasts of England: "Might as well get this round over so the Dems can proceed to their next fake impeachment spectacle. The schedule allows for two more hoaxes before the election."

Yesterday I predicted the Dems Permanent Impeachment Schedule would include 1 drawn out impeachment starting in April or May followed by another (if dems retain control of the House, which is more likely than not given vote harvesting and other shenanigans in CA/NY/NJ) in January or so (to coincide with Trump's second inaugural address).

Then, if the dems somehow get control of the Senate we can expect a non-stop 2 year long Senate impeachment trial which will go on and on and on and on.

Permanent impeachment.

Forever.

The dems/LLR's have already crossed that rubicon and they are never going back. In much the same way that they are now open about their corruption on a global kickback scale and with their real "transformation" desires.

AlbertAnonymous said...

NYT garbage, as usual. They could have just reported what Trumps team is going to do without the fake news lefty bias (BIRM) of “The brief does not deny that Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine...”

I’m sure the brief “doesn’t do” a lot of things. It doesn’t seek to eliminate the electoral college. It doesn’t build the wall. It doesn’t grab anyone by the pussy. Why articulate things it ‘doesn’t do’ unless it’s purely to smack the president you don’t like?

And what in the world is meant by “the largely party line impeachment”? Is that like “mostly peaceful protests”?

It’s a party line impeachment. But I guess maybe a dem voted against? So maybe it’s more accurately “less than party line” ? Couldn’t even get all the dems to go along with the sham?

Professor, if you didn’t read the NYT and blog about it here, I wouldn’t even be reading it’s excerpts.

Drago said...

Kevin: "How can anyone watch Schumer and Pelosi play keystone cops and think, "Wow, those people need to be in charge of everything"?"

That is PRECISELY what the FakeCon LLR-lefties are calling for across the board and at all levels of Government for the next 2 generations.

Will/Kristol/Boot/Sykes/Wilson et al and all the rest of the lefty-billionaire funded "conservatives" are calling for just that.

Drago said...

AlbertAnonymous: "And what in the world is meant by “the largely party line impeachment”? Is that like “mostly peaceful protests”?

It’s a party line impeachment. But I guess maybe a dem voted against? So maybe it’s more accurately “less than party line” ? Couldn’t even get all the dems to go along with the sham?"

If just one republican had voted for this sham-peachment it would have been called a "bi-partisan" rebuke to Trump and made to sound like most of the republicans had gone along with the dems/LLR-lefties.

Beasts of England said...

I agree with you, Drago - it’s their only hope going forward.

Chuck said...

Alan Dershowitz in 1998, arguing that impeachment need not be predicated on the commission of a crime, if there is an abuse of the public trust:

CNN video "it certainly doesn't have to be a crime..."

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Trump's team is correct. There is no crime or offense articulated. How a body of 300 lawyers wrote this up without actually including a CRIME is fascinating in a train-wreck kind of way. I’ve asked every impeachment advocate on this blog to please point to the crime included in Article 1, but no one can because there’s not one there.

One last try: if you see a crime listed in the articles of impeachment please give me the three- or four-word phrase that specifies the crime committed by Trump. I’ve almost gone blind reading the commentary that obscures the text, assuming for the moment it actually exists.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Where's the investigation of Adam Schitt and the whistle-blower? - they both coordinated the whole deal.

Hey Skipper said...

Chuck:

What, exactly, was the abuse of the public trust?

Narayanan said...

Don't many South America countries have "Constitutional Court" for issue like this.

Will that work for USA?

Beasts of England said...

It’s a good thing that Trump was exercising his legal and fiduciary responsibilities by asking the Ukraine about corruption. The complete opposite of an abuse of public trust...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

We must have another Blasey-Ford fake lie detector Julie Swetnik Schitt-show trial. The loyal stepford wife leftists of America demand it!

Narayanan said...

abuse of the public trust: vs abusing a trusting public which is normal?

henry said...

Mike, three words for crime in article I?

Trump got elected

Narayanan said...

If D's are planning continuous impeachment then my suggestion to
Senate keep remanding back looking better and better.

AlbertAnonymous said...

This reminds me of the democrat Wisconsinites leaving the state so the newly republican elected legislature couldn’t get a quorum and make the reforms on which they campaigned.

Not sure which is worse. It’s 3rd grader antics. Transparent but I guess a large chunk of the country doesn’t care because “orange man bad!!!!”

Chuck said...

Hey Skipper said...
Chuck:

What, exactly, was the abuse of the public trust?


Withholding Congressionally-approved aid -- taxpayer money for a national security purpose -- to extract a personal political favor. It really is that simple. Any common understanding of the facts would yield that conclusion. But if there was any doubt, the holdup of funds was violative of the Impoundment Control Act, as determined by the GAO.

Then beyond that, there is the refusal to turn over documents related to this little "drug deal." And the denial of witnesses.

And of course, in the end, as always with Trump, are the lies. One after another after another, piling up so deep it becomes hard to keep then all straight.

First, Trump denied that he withheld any aid.

When that was clearly disproven, it was "no quid pro quo."

When the quid pro was proven clearly through multiple witnesses, it became, "I wanted an investigation of corruption."

Now that it is seen that Trump did nothing else to show the slightest interest in corruption as an issue in this or any other case, we're getting to, "it wasn't a crime." And it just has to be a crime. But ask 1998 Alan Dershowitz about that.

Beasts of England said...

’Withholding Congressionally-approved aid -- taxpayer money for a national security purpose -- to extract a personal political favor.’

Y’all have fun proving that!!

William said...

What's the most contemptuous way of dismissing the charges? With no comment or with a simple one sentence explanation: "What, are you fucking kidding?"

Shouting Thomas said...

I’m so fed up with the Democrat’s vendetta against Trump.

Three and a half years of wild lying, epitomized by the dreary cascade of intentional, preposterous lies Chuck just listed.

Chuck, for Christ’s sake, stop the fucking lying.

AlbertAnonymous said...

LLR Chuck:

Please stop. Virtually everything you said (er, I mean, cut n pasted) is BS and you know it.

“Any common understanding of the facts” - please

“As determined by the GAO” - meaningless swamp dwellers

“Clearly disproven” -ackkk

“Quid Pro Quo was clearly proven through multiple witnesses” - earth to chuck? Wtf?

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming of not feeding the troll Chuck

That is all.



Shouting Thomas said...

And, watch, calling out that fucking moron on his lying will only cause him to lie even more outrageously.

Hari said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beasts of England said...

I know you love Althouse wagers, Chuck, so here’s one for you:

If Trump is removed from office, I’ll stop commenting here for six months. If Trump is acquitted, you’ll stop commenting here for six months.

Feeling lucky?

Hari said...

Future Impeachment charges:

Trump pressured China to "interfere" with the election by agreeing to the trade deal. Trump knew this would cause the markets to go up and the economy to improve. China didn't want to do go along, but Trump "abused his power" and China had no choice.

Trump pressured Mexico to take back people seeking asylum while their applications are processed. Trump did this solely to improve his election prospects.

Trump is pressuring NATO to pay more, so that he can divert funds back to the US economy, and thereby improve his election prospects.

Trump is pressuring Iran and North Korea to disarm, solely to improve his election prospects.

Shouting Thomas said...

Joe Biden’s public confession to extorting Ukraine’s government to protect his son’s bribery scams is the most damning public statement I’ve ever witnessed.

And, somehow, we’ve got morons rationalizing Joe’s confession.

The bastard bragged about sandbagging the investigation of his son. On video.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Trump's team is correct. There is no crime or offense articulated. How a body of 300 lawyers wrote this up without actually including a CRIME is fascinating in a train-wreck kind of way. I’ve asked every impeachment advocate on this blog to please point to the crime included in Article 1, but no one can because there’s not one there.”

Not only did it not list a single federal crime, despite there being thousands of them on the books, but the “impeachment” is an epic power grab by the House of power reserved for the other branches by the Constitution. Article I seeks to interfere with the President’s plenary authority to conduct foreign policy. The only power in conducting foreign policy given Congress in our Constitution is the power by the Senate to adopt treaties and confirm ambassadors. All of the rest belongs to the President. Period. And Article II seeks to impeach based solely on the House’s determination of the extent of Executive Privilege. For over two centuries, that role has been performed by the Judicial Branch, and actual Presidential conversations with his closest aides have only, as far as I know, been accessible to Congress a single time, and that was with Richard Nixon, after prima facile cases of felonies having been committed by those aids had been established. Article II then seeks to grab power from both the President and the Judicial Branch.

FullMoon said...

Trump creates jobs to steal minority votes.

Chuck said...

Beasts of England said...
I know you love Althouse wagers, Chuck, so here’s one for you:

If Trump is removed from office, I’ll stop commenting here for six months. If Trump is acquitted, you’ll stop commenting here for six months.

Feeling lucky?


I am not going to confuse "what I want" with "what I expect." I do think that the impeachment path, and results, are not yet clear. I think that there is an excellent chance of "acquittal, but with tremendous damage to Trump's approval numbers and general reputation." And the possible loss of a majority in the Senate.

tim maguire said...

They're right. Move for a directed verdict based on Democrat's failure to state a claim.

But there is a part of me that wants to see this play out with the Bidens on the stand. And not just the Bidens, either. How about we not pass up the opportunity to fully explore the shenanigans that go on between American politicians and Ukrainian businessmen?

rehajm said...

It was a bipartisan rejection of impeachment.

Bruce Hayden said...

““Quid Pro Quo was clearly proven through multiple witnesses” - earth to chuck? Wtf?”

Let me remind everyone here - almost the only admissible evidence that we have seen is the transcript of the call. Most of the Congressional testimony by those multiple witnesses was inadmissible hearsay.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Chuck,

You’re dirty.

You’re a liar.

This vendetta you’re own is awful.

You’re a piece of shit. Accept the results of the election, you dirty bastard.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Again, any of you arguing for impeachment, please show the difference between Obama having Joe threaten to temporarily withhold aid and Trump asking for help investigating corruption, and temporarily withholding aid until they comply. These appear to be the same thing to me. In both cases the aid flowed, but Ukraine took action to make sure they did what the USA asked of them.

Hey Skipper said...

Chuck: Withholding Congressionally-approved aid -- taxpayer money for a national security purpose -- to extract a personal political favor. It really is that simple. Any common understanding of the facts would yield that conclusion. But if there was any doubt, the holdup of funds was violative of the Impoundment Control Act, as determined by the GAO.

No, it really isn't that simple; insisting it is amounts to a tell.

Unless you are willing to assert there was nothing to investigate. No selling access. No interfering statements about our 2016 election. Any common understanding of the facts — all the facts, not just the ones you allow through your narrative filter — make what you say is simple quite complicated.

After all, granting the allegation that Hunter Biden was getting paid some $50,000/month might have had something more to do with access than expertise, which is more an abuse of the public trust: insisting upon an investigation, or failing to do so?

Oh, and I've read several articles rubbishing the "non-partisan" GAO's "objective" analysis. Here is one.

Unexamined ideas aren't worth having.

Beasts of England said...

That’s an honest refusal, Chuck. I don’t blame you.

Let’s try this one; same wager. Trump wins at least 30 states, at least 300 electoral votes, and at least 65 million popular votes. I’ll take the loss if any of those three criteria are not met. How could you pass on that bet?

Leland said...

Monday? That can't be right. I didn't think the Senate was even in session due to the federal holiday. Did the White House actually say Monday or did someone just make up that headline?

rehajm said...

Since we’re making predictions I predict Senate Republicans will continually vote to keep the circus running. Fairness, thoroughness, whatever they need to say to keep it going. This is still DC and will be TV cameras with red lights on.

traditionalguy said...

Go get them, Jay. The hate Trumpers of the DC Swamp now have nothing left to argue. Except the last one that Trump has done a perfect Job on every issue just to trick the voters.

tim maguire said...

Chuck,

The GAO said withholding funds was a crime.

My response:

(1) that's not a judicial conclusion. It's something to consider if one is trying to resolve a dispute on expenditures between congress and the president, but that is all it is. People citing the GAO seem to not understand what the GAO is or what it does.

(2) I would like to see someone from the GAO be called to testify (somewhere, not necessarily before the Senate Impeachment hearings) to explain their conclusion. My interest is this: their claim is in direct contradiction to Supreme Court rulings that have definitively settled the question in favor of the president. To wit: that the president need not spend funds that congress has appropriated. Providing the money falls under legislative powers, but spending money is an executive power.

Mark O said...

“The brief does not deny that Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine to announce investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.”
Maggie Haberman of the NYT has made a demonstrably false statement.

On page 81 of the President’s Trial Memorandum any sentient human with reading skills will find this:

"A. The Evidence Refutes Any Claim That the President Conditioned the Release of Security Assistance on an Announcement of Investigations by Ukraine.

The evidence squarely refutes the made-up claim that the President leveraged security assistance in exchange for Ukraine announcing an investigation into either interference in the 2016 election or the Biden-Burisma affair."

She is not worthy of the First Amendment.

Dave Begley said...

"the largely party-line impeachment...."

It was all Dems and one Dem switched parties. It was 100% party-line.

The NYT can't get the basic facts right. Fake News.

Drago said...

Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck (WHO WILL FIGHT YOU!) : "But if there was any doubt, the holdup of funds was violative of the Impoundment Control Act, as determined by the GAO."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Number of times the GAO found LLR-lefty Chuck's "magnificent" obama had "violated" federal law: 7.

Number of impeachment inquiries regarding those GAO rulings: 0

Number of LLR-lefty Chuck posts calling out obama for those GAO determined violations: 0

Did the GAO find the W Bush admin in "violation" of federal law? YES

Number of impeachment inquiries: 0
Number of times LLR-lefty Chuck has referenced that fact: 0

Chuck, care to explain this latest 'oversight" of yours?

Curious George said...

"Chuck said...
I think that there is an excellent chance of "acquittal, but with tremendous damage to Trump's approval numbers and general reputation." And the possible loss of a majority in the Senate."

But won't bet. A coward eunuch like his GOPe idols.

Drago said...

Anybody else notice that our resident leftists like ARM and LLR-lefty Chuck are now at least 48 hours behind the collapse of the Parnas/Avenatti-Swetnick and GAO ploy collapses?

This is out of character for LLR-lefty Chuck as he is usually pretty up to speed on the latest dem/lefty/marxist/LLR-lefty lies.

I can only guess that LLR-lefty Chuck has been on a bit of a bender during an extended weekend and wont sober up and catch up until tomorrow morning.

Thoughts and prayers for that. Sad and somberful and prayerful thoughts and prayers on that.

Howard said...

None of it matters in the end. The Senate will acquit.

Drago said...

Howard: "None of it matters in the end."

It matters very much that your Team Dem/LLR is happily destroying the Constitution as part of an almost 4 year temper tantrum.

clint said...

Beasts of England said... "Might as well get this round over so the Dems can proceed to their next fake impeachment spectacle. The schedule allows for two more hoaxes before the election."

Two? There are more than nine months left between now and the election. I'd bet on at least five prominent new false allegations. I'd put it at two unsubstantiated quotes (ala "s***hole countries" and "dopes and babies"), one insistence that an ordinary exercise of Presidential power is a High Crime because he had evil motives, one blatantly misrepresented public quote (ala "good nazis" and "all Mexicans"), and a bonus rape allegation against Don Jr. And that's on top of the current business -- House hearings on Trump's tax returns, court fights to unseal the Mueller grand jury transcripts, and at least one more whiplash-inducing switchback from "he's pulling our troops out!" to "he's starting a massive war and he'll reinstitute the draft!"

Narayanan said...

America: Held Hostage

Teheran 40 years ago

Baghdad was to be but foiled by Trump

Washington DC upcoming attraction. Can Trump foil!?

TJM said...

The national media has shown itself to be intellectually and morally bankrupt. 1) they have failed to advise the public that were 11 named felonies in the Clintoon imprachment and 2 failed to remind the public of Schumer, Pelosi and Nadler’s prior statements in 1998 that were totally contradict their position now. The media are scum

Francisco D said...

This impeachment psychodrama gives a sense of purpose to leftists who cannot tolerate the remarkable success of the Trump presidency.

In the end, it matters very little.

It's a show folks. Just a show.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

None of it matters in the end. The Senate will acquit.

Nah. There is no "playing nice" after this.

Though I am sure that some/many spineless/gutless Republican worms will want to.

robother said...

In his public remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden described his 2015 meeting telling the then-president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, that he had to fire the prosecutor general or the US would not release $1 billion in loan guarantees. “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours,’” Biden told the crowd, taking a long look at his watch for effect. “‘If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch.” Here the audience laughed. “He got fired.”

It is of course unthinkable that LLR Chuck would ever claim that this was an abuse of power or a "quid pro quo" by Biden, or otherwise impeachable.

This should be sufficient to establish that Chuck is nothing more than a Lefty troll. Sadly, however, it is quite conceivable that the Republican Party in fact harbors Chucks that enjoy nothing more than watching Democrats screw their own.

Chuck said...

Curious George said...
"Chuck said...
I think that there is an excellent chance of "acquittal, but with tremendous damage to Trump's approval numbers and general reputation." And the possible loss of a majority in the Senate."

But won't bet. A coward eunuch like his GOPe idols.


Is that what you want to bet on? What I said? I said that I expect acquittal. Do you want to bet on that? Okay; I'm betting on acquittal. I said further that while I expect an acquittal, I expect that it will be at approval/reputational cost to Trump. Do you want to bet on that? How do you propose to measure it?

Sometimes, when you're trying to figure out ways to attack me personally, I think you aren't even really reading what I wrote.

James K said...

That GAO ruling has been debunked (see Saturday's WSJ, for example), as has the notion that the GAO is "nonpartisan." Trump didn't withhold or even defer the funds. A brief administrative delay when no deadline was included with the funding does not count as "withholding."

From the WSJ: "GAO now marches onto the political battlefield to shoot the wounded. It claims the White House violated the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits the President from unilaterally deferring or rescinding money that has been appropriated by Congress. But no spending was deferred. The money was spent in the fiscal year of the Congressional appropriation, and OMB says the Pentagon didn’t intend to obligate most of it until September anyway."

Beasts of England said...

What about my other bet, Chuck? It’s well defined.

Mark said...

I think you aren't even really reading what I wrote

99 percent of the time I don't (I just happened to catch this). And nearly everyone here except for a couple of people -- and I REALLY wish they would stop (I'm looking at you, Drago) -- do not bother to read what you write either.

We routinely automatically skip over your disruptive rantings. And wish that you would simply not bother and stop crapping all over the comment box.

Mark said...

You and your responders, who are fixated on you like some sexual obsession, together with the likes of Ritmo are why the discussion here the last year or two has gone to shit.

Narayanan said...

Between the episodes Biden and Trump which aid was fungible to make round trip to DC?

chickelit said...

There is no way to call Hunter Biden into question without calling into question the whole bipartisan political gravy train that we call Washington, DC. That just isn't going to happen.

narciso said...

well I prefer show rather than say, that's why the fact that many accounts, do not even consider that parnas was lobbying on behalf of Ukrainian officials, as the link above indicates,

Narayanan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Narayanan said...

@
Blogger chickelit said
______&&&&&+++++

Would D's deem worth it for Hunter finances can be keys to open Trump finances

Jim at said...

When the quid pro was proven clearly through multiple witnesses,

Third-party hearsay isn't 'witnesses,' you drooling imbecile.

chickelit said...

Nope

Beasts of England said...

’That just isn't going to happen.’

I think you’re correct. And on that basis, I doubt we’ll have witnesses for either side. The Swamp won’t take that risk.

chickelit said...

Would D's deem worth it for Hunter finances can be keys to open Trump finances

Hunter finances are strictly off limits. Even his own flesh and blood cannot compel him to disclose.

narciso said...

he's like William Atherton in die hard and ghostbusters,

rcocean said...

This is probably the Dershowaitz influence. He's a liberal, so he's aggressive and takes no prisoners. Ken Starr is probably still dreaming about "reaching across the aisle" and have a Gentlemen's Conversation with the House Democrats.

rcocean said...

The important thing is to get Mitten, Murkey, Gardner, and Sasse on the record as supporting the D Witnesses and Opposing trumps. Then we can see what RINO traitors they are.

Chuck said...

Mark said...
"I think you aren't even really reading what I wrote"

99 percent of the time I don't (I just happened to catch this). And nearly everyone here except for a couple of people -- and I REALLY wish they would stop (I'm looking at you, Drago) -- do not bother to read what you write either.

We routinely automatically skip over your disruptive rantings. And wish that you would simply not bother and stop crapping all over the comment box.


Mark I might find some agreement with you. These would be a much better comments pages, every day, without the personal attacks on me. I'd be delighted, to not have to respond to the worst personal slanders ("racist," "titty twister," "threatened children," etc.) that simply cannot go without rebuttal. That isn't even including the daily routine slanders ("not really a lawyer," "not a Republican," "drunk," etc.) that I most often ignore.

You won't see me wondering about whether Michael K is a surgeon, or what Drago's profession is, or where Full Moon resides. I don't care, and have never cared. I never ask them; I don't want anything to do with them. I wish they would ignore me altogether.

I agree with you that the obsession(s) with me on the part of some commenters are disturbingly unhealthy. What I can assure you is that if they left me alone, it would be so easy for me to do the same. As they know, I never started in with attacks on them. I was a quietly happy commenter here for years before Trump. I was a purely pro-Republican, pro-conservative commenter. A fan of Scott Walker, and Judge Prosser, and Justice Scalia, and National Review, and the Weekly Standard, and the WSJ editorial pages.

But when I criticized Trump, then the personal attacks on me began. And to be sure, my attacks on Trump aren't even on much policy. I liked the judicial nominations; I liked Secretary DeVos and Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Tillerson. I liked the Election Integrity Commission that Trump finally blew up after innumerable dumbass statements on the topic. I liked FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb. I liked much of deregulation.

I just didn't like all of the Presidential lying, and the stupidity, and the general idiocy. And I said so.

Char Char Binks said...

"...to extract a personal political favor. It really is that simple. Any common understanding of the facts would yield that conclusion"

Like the common understanding that Trump asked Zelensky to "do me a favor"?

I Callahan said...

Withholding Congressionally-approved aid -- taxpayer money for a national security purpose -- to extract a personal political favor. It really is that simple.

There is no such thing as foreign aid to any country that doesn’t fit this definition. The whole basis of foreign aid is to get other countries to do what we want them to do. How can anyone be this utterly blind?

rcocean said...

Another long, long, Chuck comment that i have zero desire to read.

Gk1 said...

Since every president going forward will be impeached every time the house changes hands we might as well set a precedent in the senate to just throw trash like this into the dump as soon as it arrives.

Particularly this partisan piece of shit that couldn't garner a single republican vote. This way it will serve as a warning for this or any other congress that wants to go down this route. It's a colossal waste of everyone's time and resources.

rcocean said...

BTW, David French had an unintentionally hilarious column this week. Its all about how great Jews are, and how French didn't realize how great they were, because has a poor country boy from the hill of Tennessee. Why, he barely Knew Jews existed till he went to Harvard Law. And their amazing food! Lox and Bagels are delicious. Evidently, they didn't have TV or Movies in East Tennessee.

He also mentions for the 1,000th time that he adopted a Ethiopian kid (hold the applause, please) and that he's a CHRISTIAN and he's a WAR VET. Like Johnny McCain he can't write 500 words without telling us he's a Christian, a war vet, and has an Ethiopian kid. And did you know he HATES racism? Yeah, he says that a lot too.

James K said...

The claim that Dersh said something very different in 1998 from what he is saying now is debunked by listening to his full 1998 comment:

Dershowitz in 1998 on impeachment.

CNN's excerpt of about 20 seconds cuts off the last minute where he goes on to say, "But, remember..." and explains why partisan impeachment over policy differences is a really dangerous idea.

rcocean said...

And Never-Trumper Bill Kristol is siding with the Liberal Reporter against Senator McSally because that's what Kristol Conservatives do, or something. Jonah isn't too pleased either. I can understand that, since how is Jonah going to get on CNN or MSNBC if they criticize the liberal media?

rcocean said...

Unlike the never-trumpers or someone like Romney, Dersh is pretty easy to understand. He's motivated by personal interest, his love of Israel, and some legal principles. HE likes Trump because Trump has been very good for Israel. Plus, he's never supported impeaching a POTUS over partisan minutia.

What motivates Romney is anyone's guess. Personal interest, jealousy, vanity, Who knows?

MadisonMan said...

Everything around Campus today is closed because of MLKJr day -- and the Senate is open? On a Federal Holiday?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

chickelit at 1:42

There is no way to call Hunter Biden into question without calling into question the whole bipartisan political gravy train that we call Washington, DC. That just isn't going to happen.

All this is - the corrupt entrenched power-machine flexing its giant corruption muscle

Indeed.

Splanky said...

Impeachment and Super Bowl hype happening in the same space time continuum. Does it get any better than this ?

Seeing Red said...

-/Hunter finances are strictly off limits. Even his own flesh and blood cannot compel him to disclose.


Hopefully the divorce judge can.

James K said...

Hopefully the divorce judge can.

Jack Ryan says "Hello."

Breezy said...

I think that if it had been a Sanders offspring collecting the cash at Burisma, the D's wouldn't be complaining about the call.

Michael K said...

Withholding Congressionally-approved aid -- taxpayer money for a national security purpose -- to extract a personal political favor. It really is that simple.

It is amusing to watch a supposed Republican parrot the lies of people like Adam Schiff.

There was no ME in the transcript. The aid was not "withheld." The Corruption Culture book comes out tomorrow. I have preordered a copy.

It will be fun to see the LLR respond, It will not be truth, of course. The question is whether Durham, like Starr 30 years ago, keeps being asked to extend his investigation.

Leland said...

I agree MadMan. I don't suffer from Gell-Mann amnesia, so when I read a headline like that, I assume the article is rife with errors as well. I don't read further.

Jon Burack said...

It appears Trump has moved from the untenable position that there was no quid pro quo to an acknowledgement that he did try to get an investigation going and that there are good grounds for asking for one. There very obviously ARE good grounds for that, and so I think he is in excellent shape now to take down this entre joke. Of course, another joke will follow, but they've already lost the public on this one even. So if I were Trump I'd say, bring it on. What I am really curious about is what the atmospherics will be at the next State of the Union address. Can hardly wait.

Big Mike said...

The Democrats keep trying to push the limits of lawfare, and their charges against Donald Trump are part of a pattern that has been going on for years now. In 2014 the Democrats indicted Rick Perry for the heinous sins of using his constitutional veto power and for requesting the resignation of DA Rose Lemberg, after she had been incarcerated for drunk driving. Both were thrown out by the Texas courts. Then there were the trumped up indictments for corruption against popular Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, also in 2014, which the Supreme Court ultimately rejected -- unanimously, in fact. Ted Stevens was run out of the Senate on similarly trumped up corruption charges back in 2008, a case which drew a strong rebuke for prosecutorial misconduct -- but which gave us the 60th vote for Obamacare.

They've done it before, unless slapped down really, really hard they will do it again.

Drago said...

rcocean: "What motivates Romney is anyone's guess. Personal interest, jealousy, vanity, Who knows?"

Put yourself in Romney's shoes for just a moment.

Its late November of 2016 and you've been speaking quite a bit to all your GOPe pals and they (McCain in particular and other insiders) are telling you that very soon it will soon come out that Trump is a traitor and has been working directly with Putin because Trump is super duper corrupt and is completely compromised because of horrible things like hookers in Moscow and pee tapes and financial ties etc etc etc.

And lets say you believe these insiders because why wouldnt you? Intel guys are saying it, State Dept guys are saying it, FBI and DOJ and NSA and all the others are whispering it to you as well.

Again, you believe them.

So what do you do?

If you believe the end of the Trump Presidency is nigh and you want to be at the center of it all because, after all, you were the most recent republican nominee before Trump and you have all the required and acceptable views, what you do is go to this horrible OrangeManBad that you trashed during the campaign to lobby for a cabinet position.

Which is exactly what Romney did.

To be a key player in Trump's removal you need to be close. 25th Amendment close. State Dept close.

But then Trump dumps your candidacy for important roles so now what (since you still know and believe the end of Trump is nigh)?

Well gee, there's a Senate seat opening up in Utah and everybody remembers how Howard Baker was the point guy who went to Nixon to tell him it was over.

Romney had visions of being Howard Baker!!

So you run and win in Utah easily and as a Senator you still know that Trump is guilty and the end is nigh so you make sure to position yourself as the anti-Trump so history will love you and, AND, when Trump finally meets his end and the republican party establishment wishes to go in a Trump-opposite direction, who better to put in the VP slot (and potentially later the Presidential slot?) than yourself, Mitt Romney.

But then something happens On The Way To The Forum and it turns out Trump was framed by all your deep state pals and those pals played you for a sucker.

Well, you're in this far and to admit you were wrong about something so massively unbelievably wrong is a bridge too far.

Nope.

Trump still has to go so all the bodies can remain buried.

That's Romney's interest in continuing to undermine Trump.

hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hombre said...

On the way out evidence of Biden corruption should be offered or at least an inflammatory assertion such as: “The prevailing theme of these proceedings is that if Joe And Hunter Biden engaged in influence peddling and Joe Biden extorted the Ukrainian government to cover it up by withholding $1 billion in aid, it is not the business of the President of the United States to ask for an investigation. Or, more bluntly, if a former Vice President corrupted his office for financial or political gain or to protect his son, he is immune from accountability because he has decided to run for President. Has there ever been a more absurd contention?”

narciso said...

interesting


https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/19/nsc-russia-expert-escorted-from-white-house-under-intelligence-investigation/#more-181356

Mark Jones said...

As a Public Service Announcement for anyone who doesn't care to read LLR Chuck's comments (or the comments of any other particular poster), I recommend the killfile extension for Chrome. Opera and other browsers, allows you to block comments by any given poster. All you see is "Comment by Chuck blocked", "Comment by ARM blocked" etc. But if you really want to take a peek, you click "unhush" long enough to see what was written, then "hush" to block them again.

It's a godsend.

JAORE said...

"Dersh is pretty easy to understand."

Can't it just be that he loves the law and tries to interpret it as honestly as possible, politics be damned?

Drago said...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/19/nsc-russia-expert-escorted-from-white-house-under-intelligence-investigation/#more-181356

Yep.

Ever since the deep staters plots and coups had the light of day shone upon them the deep staters have to work even harder to create new avenues for information dissemination and planning purposes to ensure the next coup attempt is more viable.

One of the things that most surprises me about these government criminals and their plotting is how they still, to this day, clearly do not factor in unexpected moves by Trump which could disrupt their seamless Deep State/Lawfare/Media machinations.

Trump rapidly releasing the Zelensky phone call transcript is the most poignant example of this.

What I found most interesting about the release of the transcript is that White House insiders were advising Trump NOT to release the transcript because of Exec Privilege, precedent, etc etc etc.

Trump is the one who instinctively knew how the dems would use that (see: Adam Schiff reading his hoax transcript before the House Intel Committee) and how disastrous that would be for his administration. Even holding it for a bit would have allowed Schiff and Pelosi and Nadler to characterize it anyway they wanted.

Beasts of England said...

That’s an accurate Romney treatise, Drago. Solid.

Drago said...

Quickly so tie off my 3:27pm comment:

I don't blame Romney for acting the way he did in 2017/2018. I believe he actually believed Trump was a traitor.

What is utterly and forevermore unforgiveable is that after Mueller, when it became crystal clear to the vast majority of republicans on capital hill that this has all been a sham from the moment Brennan contrived in 2015 to set up any republican nominee and then in 2016 to target Trump specifically all on the heels of obama spying on everybody since at least 2013, there was only one path to take for any principled conservative and that path was one of confronting the democrats and their henchmen who engaged in the most serious breach of our Constitution in our nations history.

As expected, at that moment, as with Candy Crowley, Romney blinked.....and did nothing.

Unforgivable.

narciso said...

if cofer and Schrage, weren't involved I might agree with you,

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-01-20/bolsonaro-s-unholy-alliance-should-bother-davos-man

if bain capital hadn't partnered with Huawei, on a deal with 3m

Drago said...

Beasts of England: "That’s an accurate Romney treatise, Drago. Solid."

I try and give Mittens the benefit of the doubt while allowing for natural human nature and ambitions to explain a great deal.

Better yet, it certainly fits the entire fact pattern that can be identified outside of someone's heart and mind.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

By the way Singer/Songwriter David Olney died onstage while performing a song live.

Despite dropping dead, he never dropped his guitar nor fell off his stool.

Ladies and gentlemen, THAT is a professional.

walter said...

That picture of Trump and a sheepish looking Mittens is too good.

Chuck said...

Mark Jones said...
As a Public Service Announcement for anyone who doesn't care to read LLR Chuck's comments (or the comments of any other particular poster), I recommend the killfile extension for Chrome. Opera and other browsers, allows you to block comments by any given poster. All you see is "Comment by Chuck blocked", "Comment by ARM blocked" etc. But if you really want to take a peek, you click "unhush" long enough to see what was written, then "hush" to block them again.

It's a godsend.


I thank you sincerely for this. There are about two dozen Althouse commenters who I hope will make immediate use of the feature, and never again read another comment of mine.

For those who continue to clutter these pages with their personal badgering me, I hope that you will police them, Mark.

Drago said...

Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck (WHO WILL FIGHT YOU!): "For those who continue to clutter these pages with their personal badgering me, I hope that you will police them, Mark."

LLR-lefty Chuck was banned from this site and for good reason.

Gk1 said...

Poor Mittens. His voters have caught on.

A Morning Consult poll shows an 18 percent drop of Romney’s approval rating among Republicans in the last four months of 2019 as compared to the quarter before that. And 9% of independents swung to disapproving of Romney quarter over quarter, the poll found.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/01/17/poll-sen-mitt-romneys/

Achilles said...

Drago said...

That's Romney's interest in continuing to undermine Trump.

No. Romney is not a dupe.

Romneycare. Cap and Trade. "Free" Trade. Endless wars. Open borders.

Romney supported it all.

Because he was on the other side from the start.

And Romney had staffers working for Burisma.

Jail is too good for Mitt Romney.

Achilles said...

Gk1 said...
Poor Mittens. His voters have caught on.

If voters had caught on to what he was actually up to he would be trying to get out of the country before he got arrested.

But these are softer times.

stephen cooper said...

Pelosi will go down in history as the Roger Taney of her day, an egghead elitist seeking to deprive fellow Americans of their rights. Romney has his faults, but he does not want to go down in history as a courtesan of Pelosi's.

Maybe her name will soon be forgotten by all except those historians who specialize in faithless dishonest people who got rich off politics. Well I think Ken and James could name Roger Taney, I don't think the other guy was strong on CONSTITUTIONAL VILLAINS. Of course her name will be forgotten within a few years, no matter what happens.

The poor old woman needs our prayers, especially the prayers of those of us whom she considers so far beneath her that she could do this bad thing that she is trying to do.

Drago said...

Gk1: "Poor Mittens. His voters have caught on."

Well, he doesn't have much to lose. He never had any intention of running for reelection. This whole endeavor was his plan to replace Pence as VP and then replace Pence as President.

As soon as this charade is over he will go back to the life he planned on living before the hoax-based attacks on Trump began.

And he will return to that life having convinced himself that he has behaved more "honorably" and "nobly" than any who preceded him.

Chuck said...

More on the Laurence Meade 2/3 rule:

It is now around 69% of the public who want to see witnesses in the impeachment trial.

So first, we get witnesses. Then, those witnesses identify documents critical to, and/or supportive of, their testimony. So then we get more documents. More time to examine them all very carefully. More information, more testimony, more cross-examination. More opportunities for the American electorate to carefully consider all of it.

That CNN poll held steady at 51% favoring impeachment and removal of Trump. So that still isn't satisfying the Meade rule on impeachments and polling. So we'll need a trial. Lengthy and with all of the evidence and all of the relevant witnesses. I'd like to see President Trump testify.

rehajm said...

It may be that Mitt is so pious he cannot tolerate Trumps name calling..

alanc709 said...

Chuck, what do polls say about how many people believe obstruction of Congress is a crime mentioned in the Constitution? How about, how many agree with Madison that maladministration is not an impeachable offense? And don't tell me that since we're a democracy, the people get to say what's impeachable. We have never been a democracy, and that's why we have a Constitution.

Drago said...

CNN polls.

So believable.

So legitimate.

Strong track record.

........LOL

My favorite CNN polls are the ones where they poll about 28% republicans, 49% democrats and the rest independents.

Thats how you get to 51% in a CNN poll.

iowan2 said...

nameless LLR is willfully lying now. The claim is, because of impeachment, the Republicans will lose the Senate. Somehow that is now down the memory hole.

I and several others have asked what actions AG Barr has taken, to warrant the smear job. No response. Not one example of Barr's missteps. It's devolved into naked lying, attempting to sew confusion. No analysis, no facts, just smears (but then, that was the promise. 'smear and discredit)

Browndog said...

Ask a lib why aid to Ukraine is vital to the national security of the United States.

Drago said...

iowan2: "I and several others have asked what actions AG Barr has taken, to warrant the smear job. No response. Not one example of Barr's missteps"

LLR-lefty Chuck claimed he would be happy to defend Barr from any allegations of being a russian asset made by democrats, its just that LLR-lefty Chuck has never heard any democrats making that claim. Otherwise, naturally, he would be all over it!

LOL

Drago said...

Browndog: "Ask a lib why aid to Ukraine is vital to the national security of the United States."

Then ask them why they were okay with obama refusing to provide that aid.

But then, like our own LLR-lefty Chuck, they all know its a lie and farce and is simply the latest tool with which to frame Trump.

Bruce Hayden said...

“It appears Trump has moved from the untenable position that there was no quid pro quo to an acknowledgement that he did try to get an investigation going and that there are good grounds for asking for one. There very obviously ARE good grounds for that, and so I think he is in excellent shape now to take down this entre joke. Of course, another joke will follow, but they've already lost the public on this one even. So if I were Trump I'd say, bring it on. What I am really curious about is what the atmospherics will be at the next State of the Union address. Can hardly wait”

I don’t think that you quite understand how this works. The Trump team offered a hypothetical - even if there had been a quid pro quo, there still wasn’t a crime, nor was there an impeachable offense. They didn’t admit that there had been your quid pro quo, but are arguing that it wouldn’t have mattered either way - still no crime and no impeachable offense. This lets the Senate possibly dismiss without hearing any testimony (by the House to prove your quid pro quo). No chance to Kavenaugh Trump with continuing multiple witness coming out of the woodwork at the last minute, etc.

Beasts of England said...

’There are about two dozen Althouse commenters who I hope will make immediate use of the feature, and never again read another comment of mine.’

Perhaps you should start your own blog. Or, be prepared to logically defend your comments without lying or dissembling. Either of those tactics would be beneficial to all.

walter said...

Byron York
‏Verified account @ByronYork
4h4 hours ago

Trump brief: 'Former Vice President Biden did not immunize his past conduct (or his son’s) from all scrutiny simply by declaring his candidacy for the presidency.' http://ow.ly/JYTW50y0axd

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

I thank you sincerely for this. There are about two dozen Althouse commenters who I hope will make immediate use of the feature, and never again read another comment of mine.

For those who continue to clutter these pages with their personal badgering me, I hope that you will police them, Mark.



Chuck hates it when people point out he is a liar and not as he represents himself.

We are going to continue to point out you are a liar.

We are going to continue to point out nobody takes you seriously and you are only here to be mocked.

We are going to continue to point out you are no longer a part of the Republican party.

We are going to continue to point out nobody listens to anyone in the cuck wing of the democrat party anymore.

We are going to point out that Ann and Meade have asked you to leave.

Because that is what hosts do when there is an asshole who argues in bad faith.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
More on the Laurence Meade 2/3 rule:

It is now around 69% of the public who want to see witnesses in the impeachment trial.

So first, we get witnesses. Then, those witnesses identify documents critical to, and/or supportive of, their testimony. So then we get more documents. More time to examine them all very carefully. More information, more testimony, more cross-examination. More opportunities for the American electorate to carefully consider all of it.

That CNN poll held steady at 51% favoring impeachment and removal of Trump. So that still isn't satisfying the Meade rule on impeachments and polling. So we'll need a trial. Lengthy and with all of the evidence and all of the relevant witnesses. I'd like to see President Trump testify.



CNN and Chuck aren't even trying anymore.

You know they wont remove Trump.

You know the charges are a complete sham and this impeachment is a disgrace.

But you are not here in good faith.

Thank you for making that clear.

AustinRoth said...

I have come to realize Chuck and Inga lay in bed every night masturbating themselves to sleep with their wet-dream hopes of Trump being removed from office.

As Aldo Novo sang, though, “it’s just a fantasy”.

Browndog said...

This portion of the impeachment trial rules will crush the Democrats' spirit

Remember when Adam Schiff held testimony behind closed doors?

Well Mitch will to do the same thing

Any witnesses will be DEPOSED before being allowed to testify

Achilles said...

AustinRoth said...
I have come to realize Chuck and Inga lay in bed every night masturbating themselves to sleep with their wet-dream hopes of Trump being removed from office.

I doubt Chuck is that stupid. Inga probably is though.

They are looking at the election.

They just don't want to explain how investigating Biden's obvious corruption is an impeachable offense.

The people in charge know if they carry this farce out and get 20 Republicans to join them in removing Trump we are just going to decorate the lamp posts in DC.

Right now the people in charge are trying to save face and keep their own supporters from abandoning them.

DavidD said...

“...the largely party-line impeachment...”???

Largely party line ’cause a couple Dems voted against it???

What idiots our press are.

Hey Skipper said...

[Chuck:] I thank you sincerely for this. There are about two dozen Althouse commenters who I hope will make immediate use of the feature, and never again read another comment of mine.

Both Michael K and I made reasoned arguments that what you say is simple, isn't. (I will leave aside for the moment the implied insult behind "simple".)

And you scarpered.

Duly noted.

Iman said...

MFers gonna MF... http://patterico.com/2020/01/20/poll-51-of-americans-believe-trump-should-be-removed-from-office/

Original Mike said...

"Any witnesses will be DEPOSED before being allowed to testify"

Really?

Birkel said...

The Trump legal team is correct.
And enough GOPe exist to make sure the obvious result is delayed.

Icepilot said...

NYT's Headline,

"The embattled Speaker of the House today brought a third Article of Impeachment against President Trump". Ms Pelosi explained that Russia collaborator & Putin acolyte Donald Trump "abused the power of his office when he illegally & unconstitutionally murdered Qasam Soleimani in an outrageous & blatant attempt to influence the votes of military personnel missing limbs due to IEDs."

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

If articles of impeachment can't get a single vote from the opposing party it's a political sham. Shut it down.

Narayanan said...

@Drago said...
@Beasts of England:
______&&&&&&&++++++
Aren't you missing when it came out Hillary paid for Steele dossier? Much before Mueller?

Romney did not recalibrate.

Narayanan said...

Blogger Chuck said...
More on the Laurence Meade 2/3 rule:

It is now around 69% of the public who want to see witnesses in the impeachment trial.
______&&&&&++++++
Have you considered why no such polls done while matter was in House Pelosi?

cubanbob said...

If the Democrats need witnesses then the Senate demand that the House rescind it's impeachment and conclude its investigation before re-filing its impeachment. Then the Senate should adopt the federal rules of evidence and procedures with respects to the presumptive impeachment trial.

roesch/voltaire said...

I don’t understand why Trump and the republicans want this rushed cover up if the call and all that surrounded it were all perfect. Why not let the people who know testify and exonerated the president? Instead we get denial and cover up, while more folks around the president face jail time.

Chuck said...

Lol, Narayanan; there WAS such a poll. And I commented on it.

The date was January 13; two days before the Articles of Impeachment were signed and transmitted to the Senate. It was a Quinnipiac poll.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.axios.com/john-bolton-senate-impeachment-trial-poll-515bd920-ff57-4a6d-8e6f-c0113cb202d6.html

So given that you were wrong, what exactly was the point you were trying to make?

Qwinn said...

"Why not let the people who know testify and exonerated the president?"

Because the President was exonerated by the transcript the moment it was released. Months ago.

Everything that has come since is 100% grade A bullshit. You guys have proven you won't accept anything that points toward "exoneration", so why should we help you pretend?

roesch/voltaire said...

Really Quinn? The edited transcript raised even more questions for most people who read ir although ....

stephen cooper said...

roesch/voltaier - "I don't understand" ....
well, ask yourself - how much did Biden's kids make in the Ukraine while the average Ukrainian was making less than minimum wage?
How many millions is Nancy Pelosi worth, and what deals has she been involved in that she has not fully disclosed?
Which side supports Planned Parenthood which makes millions and millions of dollars every years from a business model that involves aborting many many more minority babies than white babies?
When you can honestly answer those questions, you will be closer to understanding what is going on. Hint - it is called lawfare, a version of warfare in which the aggressors are not always in the right.

Qwinn said...

To clarify: Every single aspect of the impeachment since the transcript was released relies 100% on purported mind reading. What Trump did was bad because he did it for nefarious and venal motives. Seriously, read any of Chuck's lists of what Trump supposedly did wrong. They ALL rely 100% on pretending to know that Trump had some bad bad motives. It is literally completely predicated on OrangeManBad and nothing else.

For example, Chuck's entire accusation relies on Sondland claiming that Trump didn't want a real investigation, only an announcement of one. Chuck doesn't care that Sondland admitted on cross mere moments later that no one ever said or suggested such a thing to him, that it was only his "assumption". As far as Chuck is concerned, ondland pointed at what could qualify as a venal motive, so a venal motive it was!

It's all absurd. And since mind reading is impossible, other "witnesses" claiming that what Trump thought wasn't venal isn't any more valid or relevant than Sondland claiming they were venal.

Now, what could change some minds and would be relevant would be proving, and jailing, the Bidens for their obvious prima facie corruption in the Ukraine. It shouldn't be necessary, it is also prima facie obvious that Trump had excellent reason to ask for the investigation he did AND that he actually wanted a real investigation (he attests to such in the transcript). Sondland's "assumption" is the only thing to the contrary, and it's complete bullshit. But if the Dems want to defy all logic and reason by defending the Bidens, thus forcing us to actually put them on trial and get them arrested in order to prove how obvious the corruption is, well, guess that's the way the game's gonna play then.

Qwinn said...

"Really Quinn? The edited transcript raised even more questions for most people who read ir although ...."

Oh, I know. The NY Times "edited" the transcript to replace over 500 words with an ellipsis just so they could put the words "favor" and "Biden" next to one another.

Try reading the unedited transcript.

Narayanan said...

The date was January 13; two days before the Articles of Impeachment were signed and transmitted to the Senate. It was a Quinnipiac poll.
____&&&&&++++
Nice try.

While impeachment was ongoing?

Narayanan said...

Blogger cubanbob said...
If the Democrats need witnesses then the Senate demand that the House rescind it's impeachment and conclude its investigation before re-filing its impeachment
____'&&&&&++++++
Thanks.

I've brought up why not simply remand back to House for quite a while now.

Very bad State-craft by Senate R's. (Stupid party)

Not confidence inducing at all.

They need to make some 3D Chess moves

Chuck said...

Holding your nearly-indecipherable post for emphasis:

Narayanan said...
Blogger Chuck said...
“More on the Laurence Meade 2/3 rule:

It is now around 69% of the public who want to see witnesses in the impeachment trial.”
______&&&&&++++++
Have you considered why no such polls done while matter was in House Pelosi?


Aaaaand, I just showed you to a poll showing 66% favoring new testimony from Bolton. “While matter was in House Pelosi” as you might say in whatever your mother tongue might be. The matter was still in the House. And a poll was done. And the poll showed 66% favoring more new testimony. Kaythanxbye.

Chuck said...

Btw, kids; Rule XI of the Senate (adopted in 1934 and employed as recently as the impeachment of Judge Harry Claiborne in 1986, allows the Senate to appoint a special committee to hear detailed evidence and report back with recommendations to the full Senate. The rules clearly and absolutely allow the Senate to engage in extensive fact finding of its own in the course of a trial of an impeachment.

Iman said...

The House collects evidence and makes the case. The Senate reviews that evidence and makes a decision based on it.

If the House thought it was important to hear testimony from Bolton and others potentially covered by executive privilege, they should’ve taken it to court and waited for the ruling. They should not expect the Senate to do the House’s work or correct the House’s screw-ups.

Narayanan said...

@Iman said...
____&&&+±
If the Senate does the House’s work it would be unconstitutional.

Again bad State-craft by Republicans.

Rusty said...

"LLR-lefty Chuck was banned from this site and for good reason."
I think Althouse/Meade should get a preemptive restraining order.

Browndog said...

I saw an interview with Sen. Tim Scott last night, and he totally gets it.

-The senate weighs the evidence the House used to impeach the President, then issues a verdict based on that evidence.

-If witnesses are needed at this point to bolster the case against the President, the House needs to rescind the articles and refile them after they've completed their works.

-The Senate cannot allow the House to set such a low bar for impeachment, and reward them for how they conducted themselves in their one-sided inquiry.

-This is essentially a death sentence case for the President. The charges and evidence must be so extraordinarily rock solid few people can dispute them.

Curious George said...

Chuck said...
Curious George said...
"Chuck said...
I think that there is an excellent chance of "acquittal, but with tremendous damage to Trump's approval numbers and general reputation." And the possible loss of a majority in the Senate."

But won't bet. A coward eunuch like his GOPe idols.


Is that what you want to bet on? What I said? I said that I expect acquittal. Do you want to bet on that? Okay; I'm betting on acquittal. I said further that while I expect an acquittal, I expect that it will be at approval/reputational cost to Trump. Do you want to bet on that? How do you propose to measure it?

Sometimes, when you're trying to figure out ways to attack me personally, I think you aren't even really reading what I wrote."

Lame. I read what you wrote, and copied it here. This is your response to a bet, a typical hodgepodge word salad of lame and stupid dodges. All your bluster about Trump and impeachment, and this is the result when challenged.

OK Cuck, who are the senators that will lose to move the Senate to Democrat control? You must think Trump will lose the same state, will this cost hime the election?

When you get home from the night shift at Arby's please respond.


BofE even provided a follow up bet that was ignoredd.

Leland said...

I don’t understand why Trump and the republicans want this rushed cover up if the call and all that surrounded it were all perfect. Why not let the people who know testify and exonerated the president?

I don't recall the Republicans demanding the Democrats in the House rush through their articles. Republicans did laugh at the rush followed by the delay in "communicating" the articles along with the theater of a somber delivery with pens for everyone. But never did the Republicans demand the Democrats rush through the articles. Indeed, many here have noted that if the Democrats want more witnesses, they have the option to rescind the articles and spend more time doing a more thorough investigation.

Jeff said...

All of the arguments being raised here against Trump are addressed in the Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump. Every single one of them.
As a matter of law, the very first hurdle the Articles of Impeachment must clear is that they must charge the President with one or more offenses that are actually impeachable offenses under the Constitution. The Trial Memorandum makes clear that these Articles fail to clear that bar. So they must be dismissed immediately. Anything else is itself a violation of our highest law, the Constitution. It's not just that the evidence is flaky, it's that the first question you have to ask is "Evidence of what?" and if that "what" is not an impeachable offense, immediate dismissal is the only legal option.
And it's not true that the Senate gets to decide what's an impeachable offense and what isn't. If the President were caught on tape shoplifting a bag of peanut M&Ms, impeaching him over such a trivial offense would be a blatant violation of the Constitution's requirement that impeachment can only be for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". (That said, stealing a bag of regular M&Ms when there were peanut M&Ms displayed right next to them would demonstrate such poor judgement that perhaps the 25th Amendment could be brought into play.)

stlcdr said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
stlcdr said...

Blogger Chuck said...
Btw, kids; Rule XI of the Senate (adopted in 1934 and employed as recently as the impeachment of Judge Harry Claiborne in 1986, allows the Senate to appoint a special committee to hear detailed evidence and report back with recommendations to the full Senate. The rules clearly and absolutely allow the Senate to engage in extensive fact finding of its own in the course of a trial of an impeachment.

1/20/20, 10:37 PM


Yet again, misrepresentation of facts: as in, making shit up.

Nichevo said...

Dumb question, and irrespective of party or person, why is the President accountable to Congress, but Congress is not accountable to the President? Why is there no accountability for Senators and Representatives except among themselves? I think it would be great sport if a President could knock off off a few scumbags in the other building every now and then.

Phil said...

Mark Jones, I loaded killfile and it doesn't work at all. Chrome, IE 10. Any common ID10T errors that you know of?

walter said...

With all due respect, Jeff.
Some have peanut allergies.

Brian said...

I'd like to see President Trump testify.

What is it with you and wanting him to testify? Do you think it will be a Perry Mason moment? You probably want him to just resign, too.

Brian said...

What, exactly, was the abuse of the public trust?.... Withholding Congressionally-approved aid

Except it wasn't withheld. It was released. And the President didn't swear an oath to disbursing taxpayer dollars to foreign governments, he swore an oath to the Constitution.

It was in the countries interest to ensure the money was spent as approved.