Dershowitz calls out House Dems in Trump's Senate impeachment trial after Bolton shock waves
A great review of the days events. This should all be over by the end of the week.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, delivering a spirited constitutional defense of President Trump at his Senate impeachment trial Monday night, flatly turned toward House impeachment managers and declared they had picked "dangerous" and "wrong" charges against the president -- noting that neither "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of justice" was remotely close to an impeachable offense as the framers had intended.
In a dramatic primetime moment, the liberal constitutional law scholar reiterated that although he voted for Hillary Clinton, he could not find constitutional justification for the impeachment of a president for non-criminal conduct, or conduct that was not at least "akin" to defined criminal conduct.
"I'm sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents," Dershowitz told the House Democrats, including head House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
He said that "all future presidents who serve with opposing legislative majorities" now face the "realistic threat" of enduring "vague charges of abuse or obstruction," and added that a "long list" of presidents have previously been accused of "abuse of power" in various contexts without being formally impeached.
The list included George Washington, who refused to turn over documents related to the Jay Treaty; John Adams, who signed and enforced the so-called "Alien and Sedition" law; Thomas Jefferson, who flat-out purchased Louisiana without any kind of congressional authorization whatosever; John Tyler, who notoriously used and abused the veto power; James Polk, who allegedly disregarded the Constitution and usurped the role of Congress; and Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and others would also probably face impeachment using the Democrats' rules, Dershowitz said.
"Abuse of power," he argued, has been a "promiscuously deployed" and "vague" term throughout history. It should remain a merely "political weapon" fit for "campaign rhetoric," Dershowitz said, as it has no standard definition nor meaningful constitutional relevance.
Dershowitz then said he was "nonpartisan" in his application of the Constitution, and would make the same arguments against such an "unconstitutional impeachment" if Hillary Clinton were on trial -- passing what he called the "shoe on the other foot" test.
"Purely non-criminal conduct such as abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses," Dershowitz said.
He further suggested that the "rule of lenity," or the legal doctrine that ambiguities should be resolved in favor of defendants, also counseled toward acquitting the president. The Constitution permits impeachment and removal of presidents for "treason," "bribery," and "high crimes and misdemeanors," but does not clearly define the terms.
Responding to reports that former national security adviser John Bolton has written in his forthcoming book that Trump told him he wanted to link Ukraine aid to an investigation of the Bidens, Dershowitz argued that even an explicit "quid pro quo" would not constitute an impeachable "abuse of power." "Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense," Dershowitz said. "That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like 'quid pro quo' and 'personal benefit.'"
"It is inconceivable," Dershowitz said, that the framers would have intended such "politically loaded terms" and "subjective'" words without clear definitions to serve as the basis for impeachment.
Fearing a partisan impeachment process, the framers had rejected the offense of "maladministration" as a basis for impeachment, Dershowitz noted, and "abuse of power" was similarly vague.
Dershowitz wrapped up his argument, steeped in historical and textual analysis of the constitution and founding documents, by urging senators to reject the "passions and fears of the moment," as the framers had similarly warned.
A series of Republican senators lined up to shake Dershowitz's hand after his presentation concluded.
Separately, Pam Bondi, in a methodical presentation earlier Monday at the impeachment trial, took the fight directly to Hunter Biden -- underscoring, again and again, how even media outlets with a left-wing "bias" questioned the younger Biden's lucrative service on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings while his father oversaw Ukraine policy as vice president.
A 2014 Washington Post report , Bondi noted, asserted that the "appointment of the vice president's son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst."
A 2014 Buzzfeed News article stated that "serious conflict of interest questions" were raised by Biden's appointment.
A June 2019 ABC News report called it "strange" that Burisma, which was widely accused of corruption, had agreed to pay Hunter Biden's company "more than a million dollars a year," just after Biden was kicked out of the Navy allegedly for cocaine possession.
It was little doubt given all the media attention, Bondi went on, that career State Department official George Kent flagged Biden's apparent conflict of interest , but was told essentially not to bother the vice president's office -- or that the Obama administration had prepped former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch for questions about Burisma ahead of her Senate confirmation.
Bondi's point-by-point defense of Trump's concerns about the Bidens' potential corruption came on the second day of Republican arguments. Fox News has been told that Trump's team is likely to wrap up its defense Tuesday when the trial resumes at 1 p.m. ET, possibly kicking off the written question phase of the trial at that time.
Those questions could focus on either legal issues, like the theoretical ones raised by Dershowitz, or factual matters that could prove uncomfortable for Democrats.
"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, the former Florida attorney general, said incredulously in her remarks.
In his own comments to the Senate, Trump lawyer Eric Herschmann argued that Burisma couldn't even get its story straight concerning Biden's duties.
In a May 2014 Burisma news release, the company claimed Biden would head up the country's "legal unit," Herschmann observed. "But, on October 13, 2019, Biden's lawyer said that 'at no time' was he in charge of Burisma's legal affairs."
Even Hunter has admitted, speaking to ABC News, that he "probably" would not have been on the board of Burisma if he were not the vice president's son, Bondi noted.
Bondi and Herschmann were arguing that Trump did nothing wrong when, in a July call with Ukraine's leader, he called for the country to look into Joe Biden's on-camera admission that he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor by withholding $1 billion in U.S. assistance to Ukraine.
What Biden didn't reveal, Bondi said, was that the prosecutor was investigating Burisma at the time -- or that Hunter Biden was serving in a highly lucrative role on Burisma's board.
The Trump team's argument heartened Republicans both inside and outside the Senate chamber.
"We didn’t realize that Breitbart was expanding into Ted Talk knockoffs." — Biden campaign rapid response director Andrew Bates
"Pam Bondi is on the Senate floor nailing Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and the Obama White House for their role in/handling of Ukrainian corruption," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows tweeted. "If it wasn’t obvious already... President Trump was right to press for reform" in Ukraine, he wrote.
In a heated news conference, Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said the proceedings had offered just the "beginning" of "serious evidence of corruption" involving Burisma. Reporters repeatedly interrupted Cruz, and at one point a questioner suggested that Cruz's children had also benefited from nepotism in obtaining lucrative board roles -- even though they're in elementary school.
Using Democrats' logic, a stronger case for impeaching former President Obama could be made, Herschmann argued later. He noted that Obama had been caught on camera promising Russia's president that he would have more "flexibility" on missile defense issues after the 2012 election -- an apparent instance of a "quid pro quo" involving politics influencing foreign affairs.
"The president exercises official power. In his role as head of state during a nuclear security summit after asking the Russian president for space, he promised him missile defense can be solved? What else can that mean than in a way that can be solved for the Russians?" Herschmann asked. "He was asking an adversary for space for the express purpose of furthering his own election purposes... 'after my election, I have more flexibility.' Obama knew the importance of missile defense in Europe but decided to use it as a bargaining chip."
Herschmann accused Democrats of overreach by attempting to remove the president by a vote of the Senate.
"We, on the other hand, trust our fellow Americans to choose their candidate... and let the American people choose," he said. "Maybe they're concerned that the American people like historically low unemployment, maybe the American people like that their 401(k)s have [grown]."
Also speaking on behalf of the president, Ken Starr, whose independent counsel investigation into then-President Bill Clinton resulted in his impeachment, bemoaned what he called an “age of impeachment." Impeachment, he said, required both an actual crime and a “genuine national consensus" that the president must go. Neither existed here, Starr said.
"It's filled with acrimony and it divides the country like nothing else," Starr said of impeachment. "Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment understand that in a deep and personal way."
Trump's team further challenged Democrats' claims that Trump's fears of Ukraine meddling were a "conspiracy theory" -- noting that Schiff, D-Calif., had spent years accusing the Trump team of colluding with Russia without any evidence.
Although Democrats -- and some news outlets, including The Associated Press -- repeatedly claimed that the idea of Ukraine meddling was a "conspiracy theory," a Ukrainian court has ruled that officials in the country did illegally meddle in the U.S. election. Additionally, a 2017 investigative report by Politico found extensive efforts by Ukrainians to hurt Trump's presidential campaign.
Biden campaign rapid response director Andrew Bates shot back quickly in a statement fo Fox News.
"We didn’t realize that Breitbart was expanding into Ted Talk knockoffs," Bates said. "Here on Planet Earth, the conspiracy theory that Bondi repeated has been conclusively refuted. The New York Times calls it ‘debunked,’ The Wall Street Journal calls it ‘discredited,’ the AP calls it ‘incorrect,’ and The Washington Post Fact Checker calls it ‘a fountain of falsehoods.’ The diplomat that Trump himself appointed to lead his Ukraine policy has blasted it as ‘self serving’ and ‘not credible.’ Joe Biden was instrumental to bipartisan and international anti-corruption victory. It’s no surprise that such a thing is anathema to President Trump."
Democrats have accused Trump of seeking to "make up dirt" on the Bidens, and alleged that Trump himself delayed sending aid to Ukraine until the country took a public look at the issue.
Separately, senators faced mounting pressure Monday to summon Bolton to testify at the trial, after an excerpt from the former national security advisor's forthcoming book apparently leaked . According to the manuscript, Trump told Bolton he had suspended aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation of the Bidens. The White House strongly denied the claim.
"We deal with transcript evidence, we deal with publicly available information," attorney Jay Sekulow said. "We do not deal with speculation, allegations that are not based on evidentiary standards at all."
Prior to his presentation Monday, Dershowitz said that the Bolton issue wouldn't affect his presentation, centering on constitutional law.
Republican senators have faced a pivotal moment, and pressure was mounting for at least four to buck GOP leaders and form a bipartisan majority to force the issue. Republicans have held a 53-47 majority, and a mere majority vote would be required on the question of witnesses.
"John Bolton's relevance to our decision has become increasingly clear," Utah GOP Sen. Mitt Romney told reporters. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a key moderate swing vote, said she has always wanted "the opportunity for witnesses" and the report about Bolton's book "strengthens the case."
At a private GOP lunch, Romney made the case for calling Bolton, according to multiple reports. Other Republicans have said that if Trump's former national security adviser is called, they will demand reciprocity to hear from at least one of their witnesses. Some Republicans have wanted to call the Bidens.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appeared unmoved by news of the Bolton book, telling Republicans they would take stock after the defense team concluded its arguments.
McConnell's message at the lunch, said Indiana GOP Sen. Mike Braun, was, "Take a deep breath, and let's take one step at a time.”
Fox News' Brooke Singman, Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
122 visitors
Separately, Pam Bondi, in a methodical presentation earlier Monday at the impeachment trial, took the fight directly to Hunter Biden -- underscoring, again and again, how even media outlets with a left-wing "bias" questioned the younger Biden's lucrative service on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings while his father oversaw Ukraine policy as vice president.
A 2014 Washington Post report , Bondi noted, asserted that the "appointment of the vice president's son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst."
A 2014 Buzzfeed News article stated that "serious conflict of interest questions" were raised by Biden's appointment.
A June 2019 ABC News report called it "strange" that Burisma, which was widely accused of corruption, had agreed to pay Hunter Biden's company "more than a million dollars a year," just after Biden was kicked out of the Navy allegedly for cocaine possession.
It was little doubt given all the media attention, Bondi went on, that career State Department official George Kent flagged Biden's apparent conflict of interest , but was told essentially not to bother the vice president's office -- or that the Obama administration had prepped former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch for questions about Burisma ahead of her Senate confirmation.
Bondi's point-by-point defense of Trump's concerns about the Bidens' potential corruption came on the second day of Republican arguments. Fox News has been told that Trump's team is likely to wrap up its defense Tuesday when the trial resumes at 1 p.m. ET, possibly kicking off the written question phase of the trial at that time.
Those questions could focus on either legal issues, like the theoretical ones raised by Dershowitz, or factual matters that could prove uncomfortable for Democrats.
"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, the former Florida attorney general, said incredulously in her remarks.
In his own comments to the Senate, Trump lawyer Eric Herschmann argued that Burisma couldn't even get its story straight concerning Biden's duties.
In a May 2014 Burisma news release, the company claimed Biden would head up the country's "legal unit," Herschmann observed. "But, on October 13, 2019, Biden's lawyer said that 'at no time' was he in charge of Burisma's legal affairs."
Even Hunter has admitted, speaking to ABC News, that he "probably" would not have been on the board of Burisma if he were not the vice president's son, Bondi noted.
Bondi and Herschmann were arguing that Trump did nothing wrong when, in a July call with Ukraine's leader, he called for the country to look into Joe Biden's on-camera admission that he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor by withholding $1 billion in U.S. assistance to Ukraine.
What Biden didn't reveal, Bondi said, was that the prosecutor was investigating Burisma at the time -- or that Hunter Biden was serving in a highly lucrative role on Burisma's board.
The Trump team's argument heartened Republicans both inside and outside the Senate chamber.
Pam Bondi is being paid 115,000 dollars a month to be a part time lobbyist for the country of Qatar, I read today. So she makes roughly the same amount of money more than Hunter Biden, per month, as the average American family makes in a year.
Why do I think she got that gig because she is friends with President* Trump ?
Let's impeach her too. lol
Pam bondi was AG for 8 years of one of the largest states in the union.
hunter Biden got kicked out of the navy for abusing drugs.
Not the same.
but it’s encouraging you are seeing that these jobs create conflicts of interest and the potential for abuse. Now ask yourself why hunter Biden was given a job in Ukraine at the same time his dad was overseeing American policy in that country.
She is crooked as fuck too.
Sean, Trump is not allowed to ask the president of a foreign country to investigate one of his political rivals. It is an impeachable offense. One of his great lawyers like Bondi should have told him that before hand.
I guess the Ukrainian company thought Hunter Bidens name would help them.
But it is only corruption if it did, in an illegal way. I didnt hear a word today that came within a hundred miles of proving Joe Biden committed corruption in Ukraine. The prosecutor that Biden "got" fired was on the list of everyone in the international community as an obstacle to cleaning up corruption in Ukraine. Biden would have been derelict if he didnt demand the guy be fired.
Everyone knows Trump is guilty. All this is not going to win him any votes. The longer they drag it out the worse he's going to lose in November.
Next up will be the scandals involving trump and the dictator of Turkey. Maybe Bolton has something to say about that too.
Biden was sworn in to the US Naval RESERVES in May 2013 and discharged June 2013 for failing a dug screen. He had failed a previous drug test earlier in 2013.
His CO insisted it was deliberate.
But I agree it's not the same.
. It is an impeachable offense
That’s a trusim. It’s an impeachable offense because he was impeached. Just like being too tall is an impeachable offense, if a simple majority says it is.
But it is only corruption if it did, in an illegal way.
its corruption. The only question is if it’s illegal.
John, you are from Chicago. You know how this works. ne’er do well offshoots of the ruling family get hired by law firms, insurance agencies, contractors, etc. so the employer can use their clout to profit of off and intimidate other in and outside of government. Money flows to the politicians family and any governmental roadblocks facing the employer disappear, as if by magic,
Burisma is in a lot better position dealing with the Ukrainian prosecutors with the son of the guy overseeing Ukrainian policy to name drop than someone who actually knows the energy business. Hunter Biden’s is a warning not to mess with Burisma, just like hiring mayor daleys’s son would be a signal to leave a crooked contractor alone.
it’s textbook corruption.
everyone knows trump is guilty
yet he keeps doing better in polling. the public doesn’t care. There will be less votes to remove trump than Clinton received, no matter how guilty trump is of whatever the Democrats are claiming he did, because people don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Partisan Impeachment’s will never work, because the founders knew to protect against them with a 2/3 requirement.
Whatever Burisma did or didnt do has nothing to do with why Trump is being impeached.
Trump listens to right wing conspiracy theories, and acts on them. That is why he is being impeached.
The guy appeared on Infowars for god's sake. He has no business being president of the United States.
These is no evidence that Trump will do well in November. Most of the available evidence is that Trump backed candidates have underperformed in almost every contested race they have appeared in since 2016. People have seen this clown in office for 3 years now, and have seen enough.
Leftist BS for you can't investigate Biden, he has a D behind his name.
The Democrats create the conspiracy from nothing. That is why he is being impeached. They have been trying to impeach him since before he took office.
Only in your slanted limited opinion. He was smart enough to beat Hillary Clinton by knowing how the electoral college works; and campaigning in fly over country. As compared to Hillary that proved she could care less about those people by ignoring them completely.
Strong economy and incumbent status besides the point.
Where were you when the Democrats were hemorrhaging seats at the federal, state, and local levels? Obama campaigned for a lot of those candidates as well; but the Democrats still took historic losses. By your logic Obama should not have been allowed to run for a second term.
You don't get to decide that. You get one vote, same as everyone else. We will see come next federal elections if the voters are sick of Trump; or are sick of the Democratic clown car- and the never ending impeachment attempt for the last 3 plus years.
If Trump is really that weak of a candidate the Democrats should be begging for him run again.
The Democrats must be scared shitless to be putting all of their eggs in the impeachment basket. Of course with their loser far left weak candidates, each trying to wreck the economy faster than the last with their proposals; I can see why.
No, it's textbook cronyism at best, not illegal or necessarily corrupt.
Pam Bondi took a bribe from trumps "charity" to drop the Trump U case in Florida where she was the AG. She has as much credibility as donny does, which is none at all.
She then took campaign contributions from LPS, while her office was investigating LPS. SHe later fired the two investigators and dropped the LPS case.
Simply amazing.
I started watching Dershowitz but after about 10 minutes I changed the channel to old Andy Griffith Show reruns.
I understand that near the end of his speech Dershowitz acknowledged that most legitimate constitutional scholars disagree with him. So what was the point of the whole thing?
I think Trump has some dirt on this guy and is holding it over his head.
Dershowitz is right about what he said today.
Was he right when he said that impeachment doesn't require a crime?
I don’t know the exact intent of the founders on that though high crimes or misdemeanors seems clear. To me it is not rational or reasonable to impeach a President without a crime over policy disagreements. It cheapens the whole process and makes it likely there will be impeachment now every time the House is controlled by a different party than the President
Read "The Federalist Papers", #'s 64, 65 and 66.
Why? What are you seeing there? Those articles weren't about impeaching the president. They're about the power of the Senate generally and to the extent they talk about impeachment, it's about impeaching judges, which is done under a different standard. They don't say anything about high crimes and misdemeanors either.
I think Trump has some epstein on this guy and is holding it over his head.
There has to be a reason Dershowitz has thrown away a lifelong reputation in order to carry water for Donald Trump.
I heard that Harvard wept after that "display"...
He defended Clinton during his impeachment involving 11 alleged felony offenses. He’s been consistent.
Where do you get that ? He wasn't on Clinton's defense team.
'Where do you get that ? He wasn't on Clinton's defense team.'
They just make shit up as they go along.
Desperation.
You got 3 likes and you are wrong as hell. The Dershbag actually said you don't need a crime to impeach back during that era. He's shady as fuck and will say anything for money.
Epstein comes to mind.
Pam Bondi looked and sounded like she was auditioning for a Fox News hosting job.
It doesnt matter what corruption she thinks existed in Ukraine or with Burisma. Trump can't ask the president of another country to investigate his election rival. Period.
It is literally why he is being impeached.
The fact that sleepy joe is running for President doesn’t shield him from the consequences of his or his son and their acts of corruption and sleaze. There was plenty out there that was and is well worth getting to the bottom of and it was recent enough that there is no problem with asking about it.
Donald Trump is being impeached because he asked the president of Ukraine to investigate his political rival.
If he had asked Bill Barr to do it, or the head of the FBI, he wouldnt be being impeached.
Of course, they wouldnt have done it either.
[DELETE. changing NT name of members in an insulting way is not allowed,] let me ask you a question. What evidence do you have that Joe Biden did anything corrupt in Ukraine or regarding Ukraine?
For that matter, what evidence do you have that Hunter Biden did anything corrupt in Ukraine, other than accept money for not doing much work?
Capitalists believe people are paid what they are worth. Exactly what they are worth, some even say. If the Ukrainian company thought having Hunter Biden on their payroll was worth his salary in good publicity, what is your complaint? I expect this is standard practice.
What kills me is that it is KNOWN that Trump is a dirty businessman, and yet people like you lap up his complaints about others.
Interesting. So should we be calling Eric, Don Jr. and Ivanka to testify as well? In the last three years, they have raked in 135 million dollars on their dads name and position. But lets ignore that and talk about Hunter Biden who made 3 million in 3 years, all completely legal. And Joe? Still no evidence of any wrongdoing. I mean, unless you think getting a corrupt prosecutor fired is a bad thing. But let's cut to the chase here.... The Bidens have literally nothing to do with trump trying to extort the Ukraine to win an election. On top of that? Trump never even WANTED an investigation, that was the smoke screen, he just wanted President Z to ANNOUNCE that they were investigating the Bidens. And you....bought it. Lie to yourself if you must and believe that the Biden's did something wrong, but if this crime was soooo egregious, why, oh why, isn't Barr investigating? Answer? There is nothing to investigate, and Barr knows it.
Prove it. Nobody gets paid 3 million for sitting on a corporate board and doing nothing.
Still no investigation either- despite all of the evidence.
A prosecutor investigating the corrupt company his son sits on the board of.
Right. Corruption is OK so long as they had a D behind their name.
More BS from TDDDDS land. He wanted the investigation; and he wanted them to announce it.
Real question is why wasn't Obama and Biden investigated? Of course Lynch would never investigate a D for anything. At least not w/o meeting with them in private to let them know the investigation fix was in. After all Joe even threw Obama under the bus by saying Obama supported him fully.
Answer no one with a D behind their name ever does anything wrong. We have the media and the Democratic lemmings telling us that every day.
C'mon, due. Read the freaking timeline. You are wrong.
Don't let your TDS blind you to facts.
It happens all the time - that's $1 million per year. And Trump's children have profited far more from his name than Hunter Biden ever did from his name. But that's just fine with you, apparently.
Didn't Ivanka lose money because of the Trump name ?
"SHOPPERS: Stores DROP Ivanka’s Products Over Trump Win"
"Ivanka Trump's clothing company closing down as big-name department stores drop the brand"
She lost money over her shitty products which were made in China sweatshops.
Only a fool/moron/rube would spend one penny on any of her products.
You didn't read the "Links".....DID YOU !
"Only a fool/moron/rube would spend one penny on any of her products."
You're just mad 'cause you couldn't "Afford" them, although they were actually affordable.
She got sued because she stole her shoe designs from someone else... so glad you admire that.
Comment makes no sense. Shocking !
https://www. bloomberg .com/news/articles/2017-11-17/ivanka-trump-high-heeled-shoe-lawsuit-dropped-by-italian-company
"Italian Company Drops Ivanka Trump Shoe Lawsuit"
BIG NAME people and Companies get sued all the time.
Big Deal !
That had NOTHING to do with why she was dropped from Shops, as shown in my "Links".
To You .…. Shocking !
Nothing original comes from this family of grifters, thugs, thieves. conmen/women, gangsters, mobsters.
Try to find any comment that makes sense.
Good luck!
Took the words right out of your mouth again ?
So is this supposed to be about what Dershowitz says he believes or about what you believe? You've rather muddied the waters on this one.
Good to know one of the best liberal legal minds ever can get thrown under the bus by the left, for not being anti Trump enough to stow his integrity.
Of course the Democrats and their lemmings have no integrity where it concerns Trump.
The same way the righties throw everyone they admire under the bus the minute they don't treat Trump as if he were a god?
*snort* As jaded as I am about politicians, I have never seen such a lack of integrity and ethics as in today's GOP where it concerns Trump. They will do anything to appease his massive ego and avoid his insults. That Cabinet meeting was enough to make anyone vomit.
.Have you seen what they are calling Bolton? More projection from you.
Good presentation. Very well organized. Too bad there's maybe two people in the room with an open mind.
The Trump defense was brilliant. Well said and done very well. They skewered the House managers. We should have an acquittal early Saturday morning.
What defense?
They are thinking: Trump did it but it doesn't matter because he is president and even though we wrote the book on impeachment we didn't expect to bite us in the ass and a blow job is impeachable anyway, but abuse of power and corruption that harms the entire country is just too disruptive (don't look at the 400 bills waiting for McConnell). Since we haven't fixed the problems with outside election interference, Russia is already helping Trump and if we are lucky enough koolaid was passed out.
But I digress. To sum up the defense in one sentence: Trump is above the law.
No man is above the law...
I didn't used to think so, but we are seeing it in real time from republicans. (Odd they are so anal about the law when it comes to everybody else, especially the groups they hate (immigrants, minorities, disabled.......)