Archive for the ‘Chuck Schumer’ Category

As soon as Sen. Mitch McConnell introduced his rules resolution, Chuck Schumer started submitting amendments to change the rules resolution. When Chairman Schiff would rise to support Schumer’s amendments, he would drone on and on and on and on and … you get the picture. Despite using virtually all of the Democrats’ allotted time, Schiff’s presentations were often exposed as incomplete (to put it charitably).

When Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow or Patrick Philbin would rise in support of tabling Sen. Schumer’s amendment, they’d take Schiff’s arguments apart while highlighting the cherrypicked and incomplete information. The best part of Team Trump’s presentation was that it was sharp, aggressive and short. Team Trump understood that their audience, aka the American people, don’t have lengthy attention spans.

During one of the afternoon recesses, Dana Perino nailed it, saying “He has to make a decision. Does he want to go through all of these or tell [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell: ‘Put these amendments in the record. Table them all at once. Get to the substance right away.'”

Perino noted that “most observers have a ‘limited amount of attention span'” while saying “not just in the [Senate] room … but for America,” she added. “Who is paying attention?”

Another thing that stood out was how Republicans trained their sights on Chairman Schiff’s credibility. Mr. Cipollone’s presentation sliced Mr. Schiff into tiny pieces:

Talking about taking depositions, Cipollone said “the President was forbidden from attending. The President wasn’t allowed to have a lawyer present. In every other impeachment proceeding, the President has been given a minimum of — minimal due process. Not even Mr. Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF. Information was selectively leaked out. Witnesses were threatened. Good public servants were told they would be held in contempt. They were told they were obstructing.”

The Trump team attorneys are getting under Schiff’s skin:

The lawyers invoked Schiff’s name over and over again, accusing him of hiding documents, conducting an unfair impeachment inquiry and fabricating the text of the July 25 phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine. Just as Schiff sat down from making a lengthy opening case for new witnesses and documents, Sekulow took over and with a booming voice accused Schiff of telling falsehoods and “put[ting] words into transcripts that did not exist.”

Schiff kept his eyes wide open and glued on Sekulow, possibly aghast that Trump’s lawyers were putting him on trial.

Then it was Cipollone’s turn. He said it was “difficult” to hear Schiff tell his “tale.” He laid into Schiff even more and accused his staff of working with the Ukraine whistleblower, “contrary to his prior statements.” “Will Mr. Schiff give documents,” Cipollone pressed.

Mr. Nadler played a limited but important role in Tuesday’s trial. Late in the night, Nadler made this wild accusation:

“It’s embarrassing,” Nadler began. “The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray you pledge to be an impartial juror? … Will you bring Ambassador Bolton here? Will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president’s misconduct? Or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president’s coverup? So far I’m sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote.”

As far as I know, that was the only time Chairman Nadler made a presentation to the Senate. I strongly recommend that this be his last presentation.

For approximately a week, Sen. Schumer has threatened GOP senators by saying he’d force them to take difficult votes. Sen. Schumer intends on submitting a series of amendments to the Senate’s impeachment rules package. The primary difficult vote would be to call 4 witnesses: John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair and Michael Duffey.

Supposedly, that’s Sen. Schumer’s serious threat. That isn’t much of a threat. Included in Sen. McConnell’s rules is a provision that will call for a vote on witnesses after the Democrats’ presentation, President Trump’s team’s presentation and questions from senators. Those 3 steps will take a maximum of 64 hours total. At the end of those segments, there will be a vote on whether to call witnesses, then a series of votes on each individual witness.

If it’s determined that the Democrats’ case is weak, which is a distinct possibility, a vote against calling witnesses would seem entirely legitimate. If it’s determined not to call witnesses, then a motion to acquit President Trump will be in order. If that motion is voted upon, expect perhaps 2 Democrats to vote with all 53 Republicans to acquit.

It’s difficult picturing voters punishing senators for voting against calling witnesses at the start of the trial if they vote for witnesses later in the trial. At this point, it’s likely that they’ll call at least a couple of witnesses. Further, expect Republicans to call witnesses, too. This won’t be a one-sided affair like they ran in the House.

With the Iowa Caucuses closing in, it’s difficult picturing Democrats fighting for additional witnesses. What’s astonishing is that Sen. Schumer admits during this press availability that the House Democrats’ case is deficient in proof:

It isn’t logical to say that you have overwhelming evidence to convict, then insist that you’ll “fight tooth and nail” for witnesses. Which is it, Sen. Schumer? Do you have enough proof to convict? If you do, why do you need to drag out the trial with additional witnesses?

This is proof of Sen. Schumer talking out of both sides of his mouth. Again.

Let’s remember Democrat politicians and the Media Wing of the Democratic Party insisting that President Trump’s airstrike against Maj. Gen. Soleimani would provoke World War 3. Democrats like Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer called the attack reckless, a rash decision and part of a pattern that proved President Trump wasn’t fit for office. The Democrat mouthpieces at CNN and MSNBC, along with John Kerry, insisted that Iran would strike back.

There was a missile strike a couple days after the US took out Maj. Gen. Soleimani, then the world’s most dangerous terrorist. Reportedly, 16 missiles were shot off from Iran, with 4 never making it out of Iran, another targeting Erbil and the rest falling short of the al-Asad military base. Since then, the Iranian military has been silent with the exception of taking out a civilian flight, killing 176 people.

What these politicians haven’t talked about is the fact talked about is the fact that President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign, composed mostly of crippling sanctions, is working. This article highlights what’s happening inside Iran:

Crippling sanctions imposed by the Trump administration have severed Iran’s access to international markets, decimating the economy, which is now contracting at an alarming 9.5 percent annual rate, the International Monetary Fund estimated. Oil exports were effectively zero in December, according to Oxford Economics, as the sanctions have prevented sales, even though smugglers have transported unknown volumes.

On Tuesday, pressure intensified as Britain, France and Germany served notice that they would formally trigger negotiations with Iran toward forcing it back into compliance with a 2015 nuclear deal, a step that could ultimately lead to the imposition of United Nations sanctions.

If France, Britain and Germany join with the US in the sanctions, that will hurt the mullahs even more. The maximum pressure strategy would bit into Iran’s already weakened economy. The worst part for Iran is that that’s just part of the mullahs’ problems. Here’s another pile of headaches for the regime:

Inflation is running near 40 percent, assailing consumers with sharply rising prices for food and other basic necessities. More than one in four young Iranians is jobless, with college graduates especially short of work, according to the World Bank.

The Iranian people aren’t stupid. They know that the government isn’t meeting their needs. The Iranian people can’t help but notice that they live in a nation of haves and have nots. That can’t last long. Iran’s situation will hit a tipping point, most likely sooner rather than later.

This past Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi sent this Dear Colleague letter to House Democrats. In the letter, Speaker Pelosi wrote “Sadly, Leader McConnell has made clear that his loyalty is to the President and not the Constitution. Leader McConnell has insisted that the approach under consideration is identical to those of the Clinton trial and that ‘fair is fair.’ This is simply not true. This process is not only unfair but designed to deprive Senators and the American people of crucial documents and testimony. Under the Clinton trial, witnesses were deposed.”

I’m being charitable when I say that Pelosi’s paragraph is dishonest. First, Sen. McConnell hasn’t said that the rules would be rigged against Democrats. In fact, he hasn’t ruled out calling witnesses. Sen. McConnell, like the vast majority of senators in the chamber, has formed an opinion on President Trump’s guilt or innocence. (Does anyone think that Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bennet are impartial? They’re running for president.)

Further, there’s nothing fair about Adam Schiff’s hiding of deposition transcripts from House committees. In that case, Schiff hid deposition transcripts of “Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs and White House deputy assistant; Jennifer Williams, Vice President Mike Pence’s special adviser on Europe and Russia; David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs; and Philip Reeker, a top State Department diplomat in charge of U.S. policy for Europe” from the Intel Committee Republicans. As a result, congressmen couldn’t question anyone about that testimony.

Ms. Pelosi, what part of that sounds fair?

The House called multiple witnesses to testify. They even subpoenaed them to testify. When these people refused to testify, the House didn’t file a lawsuit to compel the witnesses to testify. Apparently, Democrats didn’t think these people’s testimony was that important. Further, it isn’t the Senate’s job to investigate. If the Democrats wanted to do a thorough job with their part of this, they should have forced these people to testify. It isn’t the Senate’s responsibility to fix the House’s sloppy work. The Senate’s responsibility is to try impeachment cases.

Sen. Schumer is trying to get testimony from 4 witnesses:

The Trump situation could not be more different. The witnesses in question, Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair, Duffey, refused to testify in the House even though they were deeply involved in the events in question. Unlike the Clinton trial witnesses, who cooperated and gave testimony during the Starr investigation, these Trump officials refused, on the President’s orders, to testify or provide documents. They are in possession of information that’s directly relevant to the allegations in the articles of impeachment, yet the Senate is being denied that information because of Senator McConnell’s opposition to hearing it.

If these witnesses were that important, why didn’t House Democrats file the lawsuit to compel these witnesses’ testimony? If House Democrats didn’t get a court to compel these men’s testimony, their testimony isn’t that important.

If Sen. Schumer wants to whine about witnesses not testifying, he should complain about Chairman Schiff for his mishandling of his part of the impeachment.

I encourage you to review the attached document from Leader Schumer, which exposes Leader McConnell’s misleading claims about the Clinton trial process that are being used to justify the GOP’s decision to cover up witnesses and documentation that would fully expose the President’s wrongdoing.

If Speaker Pelosi is going to accuse Sen. McConnell of a coverup, she’d better accuse Chairman Schiff of covering things up, too. Further, Sen. McConnell hasn’t ruled out depositions or testimony at this point. This is just an assumption on Pelosi’s part.

Impeachment is only half of a two-step process. Accusing a president of committing high crimes and misdemeanors isn’t something that should be done in a rush. The Declaration of Independence says that people shouldn’t change governments “for light and transient causes.” I’d argue that elections shouldn’t be overturned “for light and transient causes”, either.

President Trump deserves his day in court to clear his name. To play games with the impeachment process is the opposite of justice.

Each time Speaker Pelosi or Sen. Schumer insist that they need additional witnesses, Republicans should remind them that the impeachment investigation wrapped up when the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve articles of impeachment. That vote signified the end of the impeachment investigation. In fact, a strong argument could be made that the Schiff Report to the House Judiciary Committee ended the investigation since the House Judiciary Committee didn’t call any fact witnesses.

The minute that the House voted to approve articles of impeachment is the moment that their authority died. The House, aka Speaker Pelosi, doesn’t have the constitutional authority to try the House’s articles of impeachment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 states “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

It’s clear that the House has the authority to appoint impeachment managers who will present the House case to the Senate. Once that presentation is finished, however, the House should totally irrelevant. Apparently, Republicans have the votes to pass the rules governing the impeachment trial:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he has the votes to set the ground rules of the impeachment trial for President Donald Trump — without Democrats’ support.

McConnell first made the remarks during a closed-door lunch with his fellow Republican senators on Capitol Hill, an official in the room told CNN, before McConnell made the announcement publicly during a news conference following the lunch. McConnell made clear he had no plans to move forward on a trial until the two articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, as he has said publicly.

“We have the votes once the impeachment trial has begun to pass a resolution essentially the same, very similar to the 100-to-nothing vote in the Clinton trial, which sets up what’s best described as a phase one,” McConnell said Tuesday.

That’s excellent. It’s fantastic that Sen. McConnell can tell Speaker Pelosi to butt out. Now that Sen. McConnell has the votes to pass the Clinton Impeachment rules, Speaker Pelosi can pick her impeachment managers and transmit the House’s articles of impeachment to the Senate. I can’t imagine that the Senate Democrats running for president want this dragging out that long. They’d prefer getting this in the rear-view mirror ASAP. In fact, those Democrats probably want it done faster than President Trump wants this over.

For the past 3 weeks, we’ve heard one article after another about what a brilliant tactician Speaker Pelosi is. Quietly, I’ve noticed what a skilled negotiator Sen. Mitch McConnell is. This time, the skilled negotiator got the better of the brilliant tactician.

It’s time for President Trump’s legal team to expose the Democrats’ partisan impeachment attempt as the joke that it is. I’ve frequently said that the only testimony that the Democrats have is hearsay testimony, which isn’t admissible in federal courts except in rare exceptions.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Mitch McConnell highlighted the Democrats’ hatred for President Trump while highlighting the Democrats’ limited patriotism for this nation. Sen. McConnell exposed them when he said “The Senate is supposed to be the chamber where overheated partisan passions give way to sober judgment. Can we not at least wait until we know the facts? Can we not maintain a shred, just a shred, of national unity for five minutes before deepening the partisan trenches?” Additionally, Sen. McConnell asked “Must Democrats’ distaste for this president dominate every thought they express and every decision they make? Is that really the seriousness that this situation deserves?”

When statesmen/patriots like Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan roamed the Senate, patriotism was in overabundance. Now that partisans like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer lead the Democrats, patriotism is essentially missing from the Senate. Since President Trump ordered the airstrike on Soleimani, Democrats have questioned whether we’re safer now than before the airstrike.

If Democrats are serious in asking that question, then Democrats should never get their hands on the levers of power. The answer to the Democrats’ foolish question is this: yes, we’re infinitely better off today than we were a week ago. Soleimani wasn’t just some rank-and-file general. Soleimani was Iran’s guy that established Iran’s proxies that spread Iran’s reach far beyond Iran’s borders. Soleimani was Iran’s guy who put in place the training for the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas and other proxies.

Put into a sports analogy, taking Soleimani out is like taking Tom Brady in his prime off the field. This wasn’t like losing the backup offensive lineman on the Cincinnati Bengals. As for whether Iran retaliates, that’s likely but that shouldn’t have stopped the military from taking him out. The Department of Homeland Security should (and likely is) beefing up our defenses against cyberattacks. The Department of Defense is already shipping in reinforcements for our military bases around the world. The State Department is likely hiring additional FSOs (Foreign Security Officers) to protect our diplomats. (Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration puts a high priority on protecting diplomats.)

“My Democratic colleagues should not plow away at American unity in some bizarre, intramural competition to see who dislikes the president more,” he said. “They should not disdain our Constitution by rushing through a purely partisan impeachment process and then toying around with it. Governing is serious business.”

Thus far, I haven’t seen anything that would indicate that Democrats are serious about governing according to the will of the people. Unfortunately, I’ve seen tons of proof that Democrats are willing to govern according to their far-left ideology.

Last night, Democrat Chris Murphy issued a statement that accused the Trump administration of bringing the US to the brink of a region-wide war. Earlier this week, Murphy accused President Trump of implementing policies that made the US “impotent.” Apparently, Murphy can’t decide whether President Trump is making the US impotent or whether he’s bringing the US to the brink of war.

Lost in all of this is the fact that Gen. Soleimani was in Baghdad and that US intelligence found out that he was plotting harm against US diplomats and soldiers. What would Sen. Murphy want us to do? Send a plane filled with cash to buy off the Iranian terrorists like the Obama administration tried? How did strategic patience work out?

It’s safe to say that Ben Sasse isn’t President Trump’s biggest fan. That being said, it’s safe to say that he didn’t take any BS from Sen. Murphy, either:

When American lives are at risk, we have the right to defend ourselves. Protecting troops doesn’t require a declaration of war or even an authorized use of military force or AUMF. A declaration of war is needed if the C-in-C wants to expand it to a war.

Thus far, it looks like President Trump isn’t interested in expanding this into a full-fledged war. Major Gen. James A. “Spider” Marks [Ret.], now a military analyst with CNN, criticized Murphy, too:

“What I would say to Senator Murphy is, why don’t you just be quiet,” Marks said, questioning the notion that the strike has made the world “more dangerous.” “Look, when has Iran ever demonstrated self-restraint? I mean, that’s the question I have. So, is the world more dangerous today? Maybe it’s more dangerous, but when has it not been dangerous? When have we not been a target of a regime like exists in Tehran? I mean, it happens as a matter of routine,” said Marks.

Murphy isn’t supporting our troops and diplomats when he’s playing the part of partisan hack. That’s what Murphy did last night. Murphy, like far too many Democrats, care more about scoring partisan points than he cares about being a patriot.

It sounds like Pelosi and Schumer weren’t notified of the attack beforehand. That’s perfectly appropriate since neither has proven trustworthy with national security secrets. Pelosi and Schumer are partisans first. I don’t know that I could call them patriots.

There’s no doubt that Ben Sasse is a patriot. I don’t always agree with him but he wants what’s best for America.

Reading through Nina Totenberg’s article on how Tom Daschle and Trent Lott put together the rules that dictated how the Senate’s impeachment trial would be held showed how partisan Democrats have gotten. It opens by saying “Twenty-one years ago Thursday, as the House approved articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was sitting in his study in Pascagoula, Miss., ‘looking out on a beautiful live oak tree.’ With a sigh, the Republican leader picked up the phone to call Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, his Democratic counterpart. ‘Whether we like it or not, this is sitting in our lap,’ he told Daschle, ‘and we’ve got to figure out how to deal with it.'”

That’s lightyears different than what’s happening today. Chuck Schumer is the first Democrat to openly state that Supreme Court justices should be confirmed or rejected based on partisan considerations. Now he’s insisting on calling witnesses that House Democrats insisted weren’t needed.

When House Republicans impeached President Clinton, they picked their impeachment managers, then immediately sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Newt Gingrich didn’t attempt to leverage them for partisan advantage. When Republicans impeached Clinton, Clinton had been credibly accused of committing felonies. Gingrich didn’t have to play games.

There was still a cordial between Gingrich and Dick Gephardt, then the House Minority Leader. Starting in 2017, Democrats publicly announced that they wanted to impeach President Trump. In March, 2017, Adam Schiff said on NBC’s Meet the Press that he’d seen evidence that “was stronger than circumstantial” that President Trump had colluded with Russia to win the election. Seemingly on a monthly basis, Schiff lied to the press that President Trump had committed treason or colluded with the Russians or made other incendiary and inaccurate accusations.

Nancy Pelosi didn’t give orders to Schiff and Nadler to rig the investigations. It isn’t that she’s a woman of integrity. She isn’t. She didn’t give that order because she didn’t need to. She knew that they’d rig the impeachment investigations on their own.

Democrats now scream about process. Isn’t that rich after all that Democrats like Schiff and Nadler did to rig the impeachment process? Senate Democrats now want to call the witnesses that House Democrats thought weren’t needed. Sen. Schumer then pushed the envelope by insisting that the Senate conduct the investigation that House Democrats didn’t conduct.

In this video, Schumer essentially admits that the House Democrats’ case is built on hearsay testimony:

That’s a stunning, idiotic, admission on his part. Why didn’t House Democrats compel the testimony with a lawsuit. Why didn’t House Democrats put together the strongest case possible. Why did House Democrats think that the White House didn’t have the right exert privilege? What is the House Democrats’ precedent for impeaching a president for exerting privilege?

McConnell should do whatever his caucus wants him to do in setting up rules that guarantee the prosecutors and the defense a fair opportunity to present their cases. If he does that, nobody except Democrat partisans will care what happened by the time we get to the conventions.

Much was made this week of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s statement that he’ll be working closely with the Trump administration on the Senate impeachment trial. When told of that, Sen. Murkowski told Anchorage TV station KTUU “And in fairness, when I heard that I was disturbed. To me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process.”

I wasn’t upset with either senator’s statement. When Sen. Schumer and other Democrats criticize Sen. McConnell for already having made up his mind, they left out the fact that each of the Democrat senators who’ve run for president this year have answered affirmatively that they’d vote to convict President Trump. The obvious question is then If McConnell is disqualified for that statement, why aren’t Senators Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren disqualified, too?

The other question that Democrats haven’t addressed is why anyone should think that partisan senators like Blumenthal, Schumer, Whitehouse, Leahy, Hirono, Smith, van Hollen, Durbin, Markey and others have kept an open mind. They haven’t so let’s stop pretending.

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, (R-PA), stated things perfectly in this interview:

Rep. Reschenthaler said “If it was a judicial proceeding, let me tell you as a magisterial district judge, I would’ve dismissed these charges on day no. 1 for lack of merit.”

This is much adieu about nothing. This isn’t a court trial. If it was, the judge would’ve already thrown it out because it’s built almost totally on hearsay testimony. Further, Democrats ignored the testimony given during cross-examination. Virtually every testifier has made a provocative statement in their opening statement. Every testifier has then been demolished on cross-examination. Bill Taylor got demolished by Jim Jordan. Gordon Sondland got demolished by Mike Turner. Marie Yovanovitch got demolished, too.

This impeachment is a sham. President Trump is the first president impeached who isn’t accused of committing a crime. The articles of impeachment will be laughed at when the history books are written. They’re both so open-ended that I could drive a truck through them. What are the elements that must be proved for abuse of power? What are the elements that must be proven to convict a president for abuse of congress? Senators can’t identify the elements because they’re making this up on the fly.

That’s the difference between made-up charges like these vs. the articles that were voted on with Nixon. Those articles involved real crimes. These don’t. That’s why this trial shouldn’t happen. It shouldn’t happen because President Trump shouldn’t have gotten impeached.

The Democrats’ impeachment problem is bigger than the media is letting on. If reporters were honest brokers, which most aren’t, they’d pose difficult questions to Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer.

For instance, when Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler didn’t ask the courts to compel Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Robert Blair, and Michael Duffey to testify, they essentially said that those men weren’t essential to impeaching President Trump. When House Democrats voted for the first purely partisan impeachment in US history, those 229 votes affirmed that Democrats had enough evidence to impeach President Trump.

The only way to re-open the matter would require Speaker Pelosi to admit that the impeachment was illegitimate. That won’t happen because that would require Speaker Pelosi to become history’s laughingstock.

Meanwhile, Sen. Schumer insists that Blair, Bolton, Duffey and Mulvaney are required because they’re the only people with a firsthand understanding of the transaction between Ukraine and the US. If the MSM was interested in the truth instead of assisting Democrats, they’d inquire whether Sen. Schumer meant the House’s impeachment was illegitimate because they relied on hearsay evidence.

What would Sen. Schumer do at that point? He couldn’t admit that the House Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump was illegitimate. Sen. Schumer couldn’t admit that he’s just trying to cause trouble for Sen. McConnell because that wouldn’t play well politically.

Obviously, the Democrats find themselves in a political pickle. That was the predictable outcome when Democrats decided they didn’t care whether this quartet testified. The minute House Democrats made that decision, Democrats’ claims to legitimacy disappeared. Democrats can’t say that their impeachment of President Trump is built on hearsay testimony while simultaneously stating that 4 witnesses that didn’t testify in the House are suddenly indispensable.

This video shows how in-the-tank the MSM is for Democrats:

A legitimate reporter wouldn’t let Sen. Schumer let him get away with saying that “we want the facts to come out” after the House decided that Blair, Bolton, Duffey and Mulvaney weren’t important to their impeachment case.