Yesterday, during the Senate impeachment trial's questions phase, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren submitted a question that attacked Chief Justice John Roberts who is presiding over the Senate impeachment trial as required by the Constitution:
Roberts read the question aloud: “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”Read more
One of the favorite attack lines of the Democrat House Managers and their more biased media supporters was a mischaracterization of Professor Alan Dershowitz's statement: “if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” An example of the left’s reaction to this quote:
“This is what you hear from Stalin,” said CNN contributor Joe Lockhart, who served as White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton. “This is what you hear from Mussolini, what you hear from authoritarians, from Hitler, from all the authoritarian people who rationalized, in some cases genocide, based what was in the public interest."Read more
In response to the draft and the Vietnam War, America passed the 26th Amendment. The thought was if you are old enough to be drafted, you are old enough to vote. However, today California Democrats have exposed that their attempts to allow 17-year-olds to vote are not for the noble reasons of the 26th Amendment but cynical attempts to get more Democrat votes.Read more
We will keep giving a few tidbits on the previous day’s impeachment proceedings. Today we are going to focus on few highlights from Monday with a brief preview of what will happen tomorrow. The bottom line is an impeachment over policy differences or for partisan reasons cannot be legitimate.
As President Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow explained yesterday:
Sekulow on Monday invoked the House testimony of White House Ukraine adviser Alexander Vindman, who told lawmakers he opposed Trump’s actions on the July phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky.
“He himself said he did not know if there was a crime or anything of that nature. He had deep policy concerns,” Sekulow said. “And I think that’s what’s this is really about: It’s deep policy concerns. Deep policy differences. But we live in a constitutional republic.”
The defense attorney said, “It is our position as the president’s counsel that the president was at all times acting under his constitutional authority, under his legal authority, in our national interest and pursuant to his oath of office. Asking a foreign leader to get to the bottom of issues of corruption is not a violation of an oath.”Read more
The President's impeachment legal defense team took a very different tactic that seemed more effective than the repetitive histrionics of the House managers led by Rep. Adam Schiff.
The White House team also displayed quick-cut video presentations on the Senate’s overhead screens, turning soundbites from key players in the impeachment case into fast-snapping clips. It all seemed to command the attention of senators, likely a welcome change of pace for those who had grown tired of the prosecution’s long and often repetitive presentations.
Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow gave his word to the senators, “We’re not going to play the same clips seven times.” That prompted smiles from some senators.Read more
The Democrats' partisan impeachment is failing and barely anyone is watching. Television ratings have tanked. Republican Senators are forced to watch silently. But House Republicans are correctly pointing out how the desperate Democrats have resorted to simply pulling falsehoods out of thin air:
The Democrats need to be called out for their completely false talking point: "the facts are not in dispute"— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) January 24, 2020
This is absolutely untrue for many reasons... not least among them is: Democrats have hardly cited any facts at all
Hearsay, assumptions, leaps, and lies =/= "facts"
Democrats often seem to cite certain events as the world is going to end if, or when, they happen -- whether it was Al Gore’s climate disaster by 2016 or the end of the internet when FEC Chair Ajit Pai ended net neutrality. This week another anniversary of one of those doomsday events occurred, the tenth anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC which was decided on January 21, 2010. As Cato scholar Ilya Shapiro wrote on the fifth anniversary:
President Obama’s famous statement during his 2010 State of the Union Address: “The Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates of special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”
In that one sentence, the former law professor made four errors that are all too common.Read more
We have selected some House Republicans' tweets to respond to lead Democrat impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff’s presentation today.Read more
The Supreme Court today announced that it would hear arguments about the “faithless elector cases.” As SCOTUS blog writes:
In Chiafolo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the justices will consider the constitutionality of “faithless elector” laws, which require presidential electors to vote the way state law directs. The petitioner in the Washington case, Peter Chiafolo, was elected as a presidential elector when Hillary Clinton won that state’s popular vote in 2016 but voted for Colin Powell instead, which led to a $1,000 fine for violating a state law that required him to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who won the majority of the popular votes. The respondent in the Colorado case, Micheal Baca, was removed as an elector after he attempted to vote for John Kasich, even though Clinton won the popular vote in Colorado as well. Chiafolo told the justices that the question has real-world importance in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election: In 2016, he noted, “ten of the 538 presidential electors either cast presidential votes other than the nominees of their party” or tried to do so but were replaced. A similar swing would “have changed the results in five of fifty-eight prior elections,” he added.Read more