https://www.breitbart.com/poli...-schiff-cannot-rely/

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) tried to convince the Senate on Wednesday that it had to subpoena more witnesses and documents because it could not “rely on what was investigated in the House.”

Schiff’s odd argument appeared to admit that the House investigation was insufficient, even as fellow House impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) claimed that the impeachment case had already been “proven beyond any doubt at all.”

Schiff claimed that it would be unprecedented to hold a Senate trial without witnesses. However, he denied all Republican requests for new witnesses in the House Intelligence Committee , which he chairs — which was also unprecedented.

Schiff and his team repeatedly stressed the need to call former National Security Adviser John Bolton. But Republicans noted that Schiff did not want to have the so-called “whistleblower” testify, and had hidden a key transcript that could reveal details about how the complaint against the president had been launched.

When asked why the Senate should call more witnesses and documents if the House Intelligence Committee would not release the testimony of the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Schiff dodged the query, saying that whatever deficiencies the House may or may not have brought to the Senate were not “sufficient to relieve the Senate of the obligation to have a trial.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...he-hot-seat-n2560383

Dem Senator Is Making a Move That Will Put Chief Justice Roberts in the Hot Seat

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) plans to make a motion on Friday that would require Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to decide, once and for all, whether or not the Senate will hear from witnesses in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial.

"A fair trial includes documents and witnesses. And in a fair trial the judge determines what evidence is admitted. My motion ensures the Chief Justice will serve the same role as a judge in any trial across our country – to allow the Senate access to the facts they need to get to the truth," Van Hollen said in a statement. "My motion requires the Chief Justice to subpoena witnesses and documents if he determines they are likely to provide evidence relevant to the articles of impeachment. It would also require the Chief Justice to rule on any executive privilege – to prevent efforts by the Administration to stonewall and delay access to the facts."

"This motion is consistent with Senate rules and could pass with a majority vote, and would preserve the right of the Senate to overrule the Chief Justice if the majority disagrees," Van Hollen said.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


so the DEMs ran a completely one sided (and secret) impeachment in the House. Denied the REPs and the President all the normal considerations that they should have, and now they want to run the Senate trial in a way completely the opposite of what transpired in the House.

The DEMs truly are the party of "entitlement"

Nadler couldn’t prove a case of hemorrhoids beyond any doubt at all...

I really expected the White House lawyers to more vividly display better arguments than the house managers. It may be that they are, but the focus of these arguments is directed on particular senators to stop this with the witness vote. The house managers may be attempting to appeal to a wider audience, and making a broader argument for impeachment and not being as pointed towards the witness issue which could end the senate trial. We'll see if the broader brush pays off for the house managers soon. If they don't get the vote for witnesses, they've lost and their strategy has failed.

schifftly and crew are really at the top of their game, and in my opinion are overachieving at lawyering and presentation relative to my previous impressions of them. Much of this is due to their team, but they are performing well. I think they would come across better if they would tone down the "sky is falling" tone some, and be more succinct. The repetition is probably intentional to make a point, but I'm not sure it will prove effective.

A couple of points I thought would be made by the White House defense team. I have heard of an anti corruption agreement we supposedly have with Ukraine, or one that possibly applies to all aid given. I thought the defense would more stress that rooting out corruption is a duty of the president.

I also thought it might matter if sleepy joe turned out to be the actual nominee or not. Maybe its enough that he is leading in polling and that makes him the most likely nominee.

I also thought there would be a discussion about if it were important what could come from an investigation of the bidens. It seems an investigation would mean little if the subject were clean and nothing came from it.

Its really rich to hear the democrats be so appalled at the prospect of even announcing an investigation on a political opponent after what they've done to DT.

Sekulow: "After 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case... [pauses for response] That's what you said."

Schiff: "We did."

Sekulow: "Well then I don't think we need any witnesses."

Sekulow: drops mic...

quote:

Its really rich to hear the democrats be so appalled at the prospect of even announcing an investigation on a political opponent after what they've done to DT.

Elise Stefanik

What a stunning turn of events today to hear Adam Schiff declare from the well of the United States Senate that it is impeachable for a sitting President to allow the Department of Justice to investigate a political rival’s campaign

2016. Crossfire Hurricane.

I sometimes think Victor Davis Hanson should have a thread of his own. Nonetheless, here's his very readable, cogent, and thorough recap of the Trump presidency and the attempts to render him illegitimate. American Greatness (link).

TARGET TRUMP FOREVER (January 27, 2020)
Destroying the president is not just the only viable trajectory for the Left, but it is also the only possible narrative given that focus on the current left-wing agenda is slow-motion suicide.

The Left has shown that the collusion exoneration last year by the heralded Robert Mueller investigation—all 22-months, the “dream team,” and $34 million of it—meant absolutely nothing.

Nor did it matter that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz found no justification of “collusion” in the Steele dossier to justify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants it issued to spy on Carter Page.

Both the Mueller and Horowitz investigations confirmed that even the partisan and warped FBI “Crossfire Hurricane” intrigues could find no Russian-Trump collusion.

And yet the House impeachment managers cannot finish a sentence without exclaiming “Russian collusion,” as if it has now transmogrified into some exotic foundational myth.

Remember, no sooner had Mueller found no collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Kremlin and no actionable obstruction than the progressives narrative was recalibrated into Ukrainian quid pro quo—albeit after brief detours in “Recession!” and “Racism!”

Yet it is now as if neither Mueller nor Horowitz ever existed, as if we have forgotten the thousands of hours of investigation that found no Russian collusion, but indeed discovered the systematic warping of the FISA court by allegations of such falsities. As if to prove that the Mueller investigation was never biased, Andrew Weissmann now appears on MSNBC as a legal analyst to continue what he once did for Mueller, in the manner of the post-Russian “collusion” careers of Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and James Clapper.

The Left is hooked on Trump and cannot quit him. If they cannot destroy him politically, they hope to destroy him physically.

In truth, impeachment started the very week Donald Trump was inaugurated by articles of impeachment introduced in the House of Representatives by 58 Democrats. Between 2017 and 2019, one effort to remove Trump or members of his administration before the 2020 election followed rapidly and furiously upon another. Reason, logic, moderation, and common sense vanished, replaced by a shrill directive that Trump was evil and thus his administration had to be aborted by the good people, and by any means possible.

Obama Administration holdover and then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates targeted Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, with the fossilized Logan Act and began to resist Trump’s executive orders. Soon Trump opponents sued Trump under the equally ossified Emoluments Clause in the Constitution. In no time, Democrats were seeking to remove Trump as mentally unfit under the 25th Amendment. Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein contemplated rounding up cabinet members to declare him insane and the requisite Ivy-League “expert” was pulled out of central casting to diagnose the never-examined patient Trump in absentia as crazy.

Meanwhile, fired FBI Director James Comey leaked confidential memos of conversations with the president, in an admitted—and successful—bid to secure a special counsel to investigate Trump for “Russian collusion.”

At times, various characters, such as the now-indicted Michael Avenatti and now-jailed former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, swore Trump had broken various laws and would be removed from office. An indicted Lev Parnas now takes their place as the Democrats’ new and one real—though, again, criminal—truthteller.

A former Trump liaison, adult film actress Stormy Daniels, held lurid interviews and press conferences about “hush money,” which Trump’s opponents sought, unsuccessfully, to translate into actionable campaign finance law violations. And as soon as Trump was elected, his political opponents sued to release his IRS tax returns.

Resistance from Within

Less formal but even more alarming efforts at removing or neutering Trump were embraced by the Washington elite, federal bureaucracy, and some Trump establishment appointees.

Former Obama official Rosa Brooks wrote an article discussing ways to remove Trump, including the idea of a military coup. An anonymous administration official penned a New York Times op-ed, and later a book, bragging that he was one of many officials in the executive branch trying to disrupt the operation of the administration. Apparently, all these misfits thought they were playing the role of Lieutenant Tom Keefer using his supposedly superior wit to take down a crazy Captain Queeg.

Several tell-all accounts from former Trump appointees, muckrakers, and Washington insider journalists variously alleged that Trump and his family were either criminally minded or unhinged. A “whistleblower” worked with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to lodge a complaint against Trump, alleging second-hand knowledge of a Trump phone call, purportedly leveraging Ukrainian help in investigating supposed Hunter Biden corruption to release U.S. aid. The whistleblower now is mute and supposedly remains anonymous because if he were to identify himself and testify under oath, his motivations, activism, and prior relationships with Schiff and Joe Biden would transmogrify him from a cult hero into a conniving anti-Trump activist.

And on and on.

So what happens in the never-ending impeachment story, once the current impeachment indictment leads to an inevitable Senate vote of exoneration?

Another Stormy somewhere? A follow-up to Operation Crossfire Hurricane? Tax returns redux? Whistleblower 2.0? Another New York Times anonymous op-ed resister? Bob Woodward’s sequel? More leaked phone calls? Another impeachment hearing, and another impeachment vote? Schiff’s new version of a presidential call? One more Ivy League psychiatrist distance-diagnosing Trump as nuts? An emoluments clause do-over? More FISA warrants? A newly discovered Trump phone call to Poland, Romania, or Mexico? Lt. Colonel Vindman’s twin?

The Weakest Field in Decades

I mention these post-impeachment psychodramas because they are symptomatic of a sick Democratic patient. Yet the endless effort to destroy Trump before the election in the progressive mind has a certain logic given the current Democratic dilemma.

The Democratic Party is currently struggling with the weakest field of candidates since 1972 or 1984, well apart from the irony that a party that hectors the nation on proportional representation and disparate impact is fine with an all-white debating stage.

Joe Biden offers the only chance of winning the Midwest swing states. Yet he seems to be aging on the campaign trail exponentially, with 10 more—and more frantic—months of campaigning ahead.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) can certainly be nominated, but he cannot win, because the country knows that he would end the United States as we have known it. The scold Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), sanctimonious Pete Buttigieg, and chameleon billionaire Michael Bloomberg can only make the primary race interesting.

The Democratic platform will likely include the “Green New Deal,” a wealth tax, Medicare for All, tuition debt cancellation, higher income taxes, veritable open borders, an end to deportation and perhaps ICE as well, reparations, and a leftwing version of Obama’s failed foreign policy.

In other words, the Democratic agenda is weaker even than the unlucky candidate who will be expected to run on it.

Given those realities, there is a perverse logic in destroying Trump first, and worrying later about offering an alternative agenda. Democrats accept that if Trump is not removed from office, or is not mired in existential scandals, or not physically destroyed, he will likely win in November. The ensuing eight-year Trump reign would destroy not just the Obama legacy, but weaken the entire progressive project for a generation.

Because Trump is not a traditional Republican, the Democrats are bewildered over how to neuter him. His rally audiences are composed of about 40 percent Independents and Democrats. His entire China reset is predicated on saving manufacturing industries, blue-collar jobs, and the industrial heartland—the erstwhile heart of the old Democratic Party.

The supposedly racist Trump appeals to minorities in a way that previous Republican candidates have not, and in ways that transcend his record. For all his loudness and invective, Trump is seen as authentic. He is not condescending. The thought of Trump rolling his r’s or adopting a Hillary or Joe Biden inner-city patois is impossible. Being rough and genuine is usually seen as preferable to smooth and fake.

The Trump effort to stop illegal immigration and thus empower entry-level American job seekers, to fast track energy development, expand deregulation, recalibrate asymmetrical trade, and avoid expeditionary wars abroad have led not just to the strongest economy of the 21st century, but to a different sort of economy based on the idea of full-employment, energy independence, and changing the role of government from obstructer to promoter of free enterprise.

More, More, More

Democrats don’t talk up their alternate agenda because they know that more regulations, open borders, trade appeasement, banning fracking, and the green new deal, would be the very opposite of Trump’s plan and likely achieve the very opposite of Trump’s results. In this context, destroying Trump is not just the only viable trajectory for the Left, but it is also the only possible narrative. Again, to focus on the current left-wing agenda is slow-motion suicide.

The Democrats know that impeachment will not lead to a conviction. They accept that they are not gaining traction in the polls. They fear that Trump’s wounds heal quickly and what doesn’t destroy him can make him stronger.

So why continue? Again, there is little other alternative. Moreover, addicts do not act logically and the Left is hooked on Trump and cannot quit him. Finally, they hope to destroy Trump physically. He will be 74 in June. By the standards of senior medicine, they feel Trump is locked in a self-destructive cycle: little sleep, little exercise, poor diet, too heavy, too stressed.

Very few politicians in memory could physically endure the invective, hate, and furor aimed at Trump and his family daily over the last three years. Much less, could any president function with 90 percent negative media coverage, moles in the executive branch monitoring his every breath, and an unhinged opposition whose reason to get up in the morning is to end Trump.

The Democrats believe that one more whistleblower, just a bit more impeachment, a little more Nadler or Schiff, a pinch more of Pelosi, or another Ukrainian or Russian liar might finally give Trump a stroke or malignancy. With Trump debilitated, they might have a chance against a more traditional Republican.

We will be down to the elemental after impeachment: if you can’t beat Trump legislatively, judicially, or electorally, and if you can’t impeach, convict him and remove him, perhaps you can simply physically destroy him.

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
Here's my rally report:

KAG 2020

RAMIUS, great report man!

I too felt a thrill like you described at the 2016 Hershey rally days before the election, it's hard to explain to people; they just have to experience it for themselves. Nothing cult-ish or bad about it, just a great feeling of being surrounded by great people who love their country and President.

Have you seen the Philly media's accounts of this, notably Will Bunch? They did their best to paint you all as a bunch of racist ugly old white people shouting racist ugly things and fighting with the "noble" protesters there. Gimme a friggin' break! They know this was huge and are PISSED about it.

I've been writing to DEM Senators Tim Kaine & Mark Warner about the DEM impeachment coup attempt


Part of Kaine's reply:

"Soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election is illegal under federal law"

Kaine was Clinton's 2016 VP candidate.

Clinton who paid a foreign spy to collect negative information on Donald Trump from the Kremlin. And then have the foreign spy to feed that "oppo research" anonymously to the U.S. news media and as a confidential human source to the FBI.

Information that has been proven false and fabricated.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
Here's my rally report:

KAG 2020

RAMIUS, great report man!

I too felt a thrill like you described at the 2016 Hershey rally days before the election, it's hard to explain to people; they just have to experience it for themselves. Nothing cult-ish or bad about it, just a great feeling of being surrounded by great people who love their country and President.

Have you seen the Philly media's accounts of this, notably Will Bunch? They did their best to paint you all as a bunch of racist ugly old white people shouting racist ugly things and fighting with the "noble" protesters there. Gimme a friggin' break! They know this was huge and are PISSED about it.

Thanks man! Totally amazing experience and it was totally worth it.

I haven't really been paying attention to the media in regard to the Wildwood Rally, I don't want them to kill my buzz lol. There was zero fighting or anything.

The closest people came to a "fight" that I saw was around 3pm when 4 people, a father and 3 teenage girls decided to sneak into our corral on the home stretch into the building. They were quickly spotted and people who've been waiting all night confronted them. Nothing was physical, just people calling them out about what they were trying to do. The dad tried to ignore the hecklers for 20 minutes straight while his girls stood by awkwardly.

No matter how they spin it, the videos show proof of what the attendance was and who it was comprised of. It had to be 50% women or more. People of all races were there hanging out with us racist Trump supporters having a good old time.

The only negative thing I've been seeing is Trump haters posting photos of all the trash that was left, saying we're slobs. There were few trashcans for the whole rally, I spotted two my entire time there. The lack of trashcans was a security measure dictated by the SS (bombs). Everyone basically had 24 hours worth of stuff to drop before going in and we had no choice but to put them in piles in the corrals. The whole area was cleaned up by 10am the next morning with any useful supplies left behind getting donated to the homeless. Yet they spin it like we're all racist litterers who threw trash directly into the ocean. They're always searching for something negative.

They're at it again. Local CBS radio affiliate is reporting that a woman is claiming Trump raped her in the 90's and her legal team wants a sample of his DNA to compare to a dress she was wearing at the time.

Senator Hawley: The House Managers “Just Don’t Have a Case”...

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley weighs in on the current Senate impeachment trial, and a possibility that some Democratic senators may vote to acquit.



https://theconservativetreehou...-a-case/#more-182224

It's like FUCKING CLOCKWORK with these leftists, of course we are nearing the end of this Senate trial with exoneration looming...



Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
Nadler couldn’t prove a case of hemorrhoids beyond any doubt at all...

.....other than acting like one himself

Why is Roberts protecting the whistleblower?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

Well, I won't say that's impossible, but it's...ummm, unlikely.

But it could portend a 2020 groundswell that pushes the popular vote so overwhelmingly to Trump that the Dems cannot cheat enough votes to counter it. This would force the blue states that agreed to cast their electoral votes for the popular vote candidate to vote for Trump.



.

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:
Why is Roberts protecting the whistleblower?

Because he's a Democrat wolf in Republican sheep's clothing...

Sen. Deming seems to be convinced everyone "is in the loop".

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
... her legal team wants a sample of his DNA to compare to a dress she was wearing at the time.

Sit tight. The entire Fascist Left is going to get a massive sample of his DNA this November.



.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
It's like FUCKING CLOCKWORK with these leftists, of course we are nearing the end of this Senate trial with exoneration looming...



Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”

Oh, it's that same goofy bitch? No wonder they didn't name her in the snippets I heard. She came off looking like a complete loon before. It's like they were trying to give the impression that this was a new accuser.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
... her legal team wants a sample of his DNA to compare to a dress she was wearing at the time.

Sit tight. The entire Fascist Left is going to get a massive sample of his DNA this November.

Yeah they are.

I know Drudge is not in favor any more. I hardly look at his site.

But I do check it once in a while.

On the top left of the page is a poll

"Should impeachment trial have witnesses ?"

current tally: No 76 %, Yes 24 %

chance to send a message. recommend vote No

xxxxxxxxxxxxx


Rand Paul question that John Roberts refused to ask:

To the Manager Schiff and counsel for the President:

Manager Schiff and Counsel for the President, are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?

more detail

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...ustice-john-roberts/

In the question, Paul does not identify Eric Ciaramella, a CIA analyst who has been widely reported to be the “whistleblower” whose complaint launched the Democrats’ impeachment proceedings, as the “whistleblower.”

But Roberts has now multiple times throughout the trial censored any mention of Ciaramella’s name , despite his direct involvement in these matters.

Paul also tweeted this after the fact:

My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.

Recent investigative reports from RealClearPolitics have indicated that Misko, now a Schiff staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, and Ciaramella have a close relationship and were overheard discussing efforts to try to plot against President Trump.

Roberts has not offered any legal argument for hiding the individual’s identity. As Breitbart News has repeatedly explained, the only statutory protection for people who submit whistleblower complaints is that the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) cannot name him or her publicly:

Even left-wing mainstream media outlets—CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), and Reuters — determined that, certainly, no law prohibits President Donald Trump or members of Congress from disclosing the name of the leaker who sparked the impeachment inquiry.

Even Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) confirmed this fact by reading a passage from the Washington Post into the record of the House impeachment hearings which states: “That appears to be the lone statutory restriction on disclosing a whistleblower’s identity, applicable only to the inspector general’s office. We found no court rulings on whether whistleblowers have a right to anonymity under the ICWPA or related statutes.”

Further, Breitbart’s Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak has written President Trump has a right under the Sixth Amendment to confront his accuser at a trial where he is the defendant. He explains: “even if the Chief Justice were to rule that it does not, the Senate can overrule him. If the president wants to call the whistleblower to testify, he will likely have to do so.”

In October, RealClearInvestigations published an individual’s name whom author Paul Sperry believes is likely the “whistleblower” — Eric Ciaramella, an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who worked for the National Security Council under the Obama and Trump administrations.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx


so on what basis does Roberts, once again, make up his own rules ?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,