Additional Books by the Director
This is the third of a three-volume set. This trilogy covers the impeachment of Donald J. Trump that occurred over the fall of 2019 to the winter of 2020. It was yet one more attempt to oust the President from office by Democrats, who never accepted he won in 2016. A complaint about a phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky led an impeachment inquiry to begin in early September 2019, and the resultant proceedings tore America apart at the seams.
This third volume of this three volume set covers the impeachment trial in the US Senate in January to February 2020 and its aftermath. In the trial, both sides were given an equal opportunity to present their arguments. This volume also provides updates of related issues up to just before the 2020 election. It focuses on the corruption of Joe Biden that Trump wanted investigated and which led to the impeachment inquiry.
Available Formats
Amazon:
Kindle Reading Device eBook: 2.35 MB. $3.99. Order and download from Amazon.
Paperback: 490 pages (6” x 9” pages). $15.99. Order from Amazon.
Hardback: 490 pages (6”x 9” pages). $23.95. Order from Amazon.
Lulu Publishing:
Acrobat Reader® eBook: 474 pages. 3,434 KB. $3.99. Purchase and download from : Lulu Publishing.
EPUB for Adobe Digital Editions Format – $4.50. 440 KB. Order and download from Lulu Publishing.
Paperback: 490 pages (6” x 9” pages). $16.75. Order from the publisher via their website: Lulu Publishing.
Hardback: 490 pages (6” x 9” pages). $24.50. Order from the publisher via their Web site: Lulu Publishing.
Notes:
Different formats and publishers might have different covers, but the content is the same in all of them.
The links to Amazon are advertising links, for which I receive a commission in addition to my royalty if a product is purchased after following the link.
Readers
Download the free PDF Reader (Acrobat Reader®)
Purchase the Kindle Wireless Reading Device
The Three Volumes
Volume One: Beginnings Through HIC Hearings (Early September Through Late November 2019)
Volume Two: HJC Hearings and Pre-Senate Trial Events (Mid-November 2019 to Mid-January 2020)
Volume Three: The Senate Trial and Its Aftermath (Late January to Early February 2020, Updates Through October 2020)
Preview
Introductory Pages
Table of Contents
[Page numbers refer to the hardcopy versions]
Preface .....……………………………………………….. 5
Chronology of this Book and Follow-Up Book/
About the Author ………………………………………… 6
First Half of the Senate Trial
Late January 2020
#1 – Days One to Three: Rules Debate/
House Managers Present Their Case: Part One …….. 9
#2 – Day Four: House Managers Present Their Case:
Part Two ………………………………………………… 39
#3 – My Defense of the President ……………………. 59
#4 – Day Five: Team Trump’s Defense – Part One … 81
#5 – Bolton Revelations ………………………………. 103
#6 – Day Six: Team Trump’s Defense – Part Two …. 115
#7 – Day Six (continued) and Day Seven:
Team Trump’s Defense – Part Three ……………….. 139
Section Two – 167
Second Half of the Senate Trial
Early February 2020
#8 – Day Eight: Senator’s Questions – Part One ….. 169
#9 – Day Eight: Senator’s Questions – Part Two ….. 199
#10 – Day Eight: Senator’s Questions – Part Three .. 229
#11 – Days Nine and Ten: Senator’s Questions/
New Witnesses Debate and Vote …………………… 259
#12 – Day Eleven: Updates/ Closing Arguments ….. 291
#13 – Days Twelve and Thirteen:
Senators’ Speeches/ SOTU ………………………… 319
Section Three – 357
Post Senate Trial
Early February 2020
Updates Through October 2020
#14 – Senate Votes and the Aftermath ………...…… 359
#15 – Post-Trial, Pre-Election Updates …..………… 395
#16 – Conclusion to this Trilogy ……………………… 419
Appendixes … 423
#1 – Impeachment Documents ……………………… 425
#2 – Bibliography.……………………………………… 429
#3 – Additional Books by the Author ……………….. 473
#4 – Author’s Websites, Newsletters, Social Sites/
Contacting the Author …………………………... 487
Preface
This is the third of a three-volume set. This trilogy covers the impeachment of Donald J. Trump that occurred over the fall of 2019 into the winter of 2020.
The impeachment of President Trump was yet one more attempt to oust President Trump from office by Democrats, who never accepted he won in 2016. A complaint about a phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky led the Dem-controlled House to begin an impeachment inquiry in early September 2019.
These impeachment proceedings began as the Mueller investigation into alleged Trump/ Russian collusion in the 2016 election ended, culminating in the Mueller report and his testimony before Congress. That witch hunt was just one of many attempts by Dems and the mainstream media (MSM) to disparage and to remove President Trump from office.
There were also false claims Trump has dementia and attempts to remove him from office via the 25th amendment, the Stormy Daniels charade, the emoluments clause schemes, the constant badgering to get Trump’s tax returns, unending lies about Trump being a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, or some such negative label. These attempts are chronicled on my politics website and in my book Tearing the USA Apart.
That background is important to remember as we review this impeachment fiasco. This was not the first attempt to remove President Trump from office or at least to disparage him, nor was it the last. As this fiasco was occurring, something was brewing in China that would go on to affect the entire world. But Dems and the MSM would also try to use that crisis to disparage the President.
I am of course referring to the Coronavirus. In this three-volume set, I will mention the Coronavirus when dates coincide between what was brewing in China and these proceedings.
We also will sadly see many more impeachments in the future. In fact, that was a talking point of Republicans throughout these impeachment proceedings, that Dems are so watering down impeachment that it will be used as a political weapon anytime in the future when the President is of one party and the House is controlled by the other party.
If Trump wins the 2020 election and Dems retain control of the House, then there very well could be an Impeachment 2.0. If that happens, it will be good to remember what happened this time, so that the reader can be on the lookout for the same tricks to be used next time.
If Joe Biden wins, and if tradition holds and Republicans retake control of the House in 2022, then it could be a President Biden who gets impeached. The basis for doing so is already laid out in this volume, as this Volume Three focuses on the quid pro quo and corruption on the part of Joe Biden.
But even if he is not impeached, it is important for Americans to be reminded of these corrupt actions when Biden was Vice President and how he used the power of his office as VP to enrich his own family member. That way, we can be on the lookout for Biden to act even more corruptly if he attains the even more powerful office of President.
This Volume Three covers the impeachment trial in the US Senate in January to February 2020 and its aftermath. In the trial, both sides were given an equal opportunity to present their arguments. This debate exposes the rancor in Washington and why nothing ever seems to get done. Both sides talk past each other, neither side listening to the other.
This volume also provides updates of related issues through October 2020, to just prior to the presidential election of November 3, 2020.
Chronology of this Book and Follow-Up Book
The entirety of this Volume Three was written prior to the presidential election of November 3, 2020. As the subtitle indicates, the bulk of this volume focuses on the impeachment trial in the Senate that occurred from late January to early February 2020. But this book then provides updates through October 2020, to just prior to the 2020 election.
I have plans for a follow-up book that will cover that election and its aftermath. I am not sure of the title yet, as I need to wait for those elections results to be finalized. But it will pick up the story where this book leaves off.
Chapters Excerpts
Chapter One
Days One and Two of the Senate Trial
Rules Debate and House Managers Present Their Case
Part One
The first day of the Senate trial was supposed to begin at 1:00 pm on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. But before it began, at 12:30 pm, Barry Black, the Senate Chaplain, gave a nice invocation. I was pleased CNN paused their punditry to air his prayer.
Then Mitch McConnell gave a short speech. He outlined the four stages to the trial that I will presently shortly. He said this was the same format used for Clinton’s impeachment. He also said the Senate would not be doing the House’s job. However, the Senate trial will he fair, unlike the House’s process.
Chuck Schumer then gave a counter speech. He said the press must be present for the trial. I’m not sure why he felt a need to say that, as I never heard any reports that Mitch was considering a closed trial.
In any case, Chuck then gave the Dem talking points that I just outlined. He then claimed McConnell’s rules were “completely partisan.” He said Mitch was trying to have a “rushed trial with no evidence in the dark of night.” He then claimed his plan was “not close to the Clinton rules.” He then gave arguments for additional witnesses and documents in the Senate trial. I will detail those as we go on.
But here, the first day of the trial began at 1:18 pm EST on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. It started 18 minutes late, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel made a couple of last-minute changes to the rules.
Before the session started on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) altered his own proposed rules, issued a day earlier, after Democrats and a key centrist Republican objected to his plan to squeeze 24 hours of opening arguments by the prosecution and defense into two days each. Instead, each side is now scheduled to get three days. Mr. McConnell also said evidence gathered in the House impeachment probe over the fall would be automatically entered into the Senate record, reversing his earlier stance (WSJ. Senate).
These changes rendered mute Chuck’s talk about “a rushed trial with no evidence in the dark of night.”
Before the proceedings started, Chief Justice Roberts sworn in Senator Jim Inhofe, as he missed the swearing in ceremony the week before due to a “family medical emergency.” Then Michael Stenger, the Sergeant at Arms, declared for everyone to “remain silent under pain of imprisonment.”
Justice Roberts then gave a list of documents that had been received. Then the resolution of the rules and procedures were read. Lead Trump lawyer Pat Cipollone would speak first, then Head House Manager Adam Schiff would speak.
Once the proceedings started, it was not the trial per se. It was supposed to be a rules debate, consisting of arguments over the structure of the trial. Mitch McConnel opened the proceedings by relating the four planned steps. These are as previously reported:
1. Opening arguments from House Managers.
2. Opening arguments from Team Trump.
3. Written questions to either side through the Chief Justice.
4. Consider if more evidence or witnesses are needed.
Mitch said this plan would give fairness to both sides, unlike the unfairness that was seen in the House proceedings. He added the House could have subpoenaed additional witlessness and documents, but Dems now want the Senate to do their job.
The rest of the day was spent arguing and voting about when to decide on if additional witnesses would be called and more documents would be subpoenaed. Dems made seven amendments in this regard before midnight....
Chapter Two
Day Four of The Senate Trial
House Managers Present Their Case
Part Two
Adam Schiff took the floor and said the plan for today was to finish on article one, then most of the day would be about article two. Then they would offer concluding thoughts.
Jason Crow now took the floor. He said the hold on the aid was only lifted after Trump got caught. He referenced a Washington Post article on September 5, 2019. The House inquiry began September 9. Then on September 11, the aid was released. He claimed, as the scheme was unraveling, no other explanation was given for the release of aid other than Trump “got caught.”
Jason then said he would respond in advance to what he assumed would be Team Trump’s arguments. He said they will ignore a significant portion of the evidence. But it shows the aid hold was not for a policy review. The evidence for that is none was done after June 18.
It also was not about corruption. Corruption was not mentioned in either call, and the DOD had finished its review. It also was not about burden sharing, as other countries contribute more than the USA. In addition, the military aid was released without further aid being given by other countries. Moreover, Trump didn’t ask Sondland, the European Union (EU) ambassador, about EU member countries giving more. And Vindman testified the facts on the ground didn’t change.
Jason said Team Trump will argue Ukraine didn’t learn of the aid hold until August 28. But the emails of July 25 show us they knew long before that. In addition, plans were already underway for the CNN interview. But it was cancelled when the aid was released.
He closed by saying, “I have to ask the Senators a question—Are Trump’s actions okay?”
Hakeem Jeffries now took the floor. He started by saying, “We gather here today not as Democrats or Republicans, not as liberals or conservatives, but as Americans.”
He then said the “troubling reality” is Trump tried to cheat, but he got caught. The he tried to cover it up. “I will address the cover up.”
By July of 2019, Trump’s allies became aware of his scheme. They then tried to cover it up. After July 25, it was clear the scheme was not being orchestrated by “rogue” people like Rudy, but that Trump was directing the shots.
After the call, Vindman reported to the IG and said it was “inappropriate” for the President to ask a foreign country to investigate an American and his political rival. Morrison said he recommended the call record be classified. But he was said it was a mistake when it was placed on a secure server.
On August 12, the WB filed his formal complaint. It was said to be “credible and urgent.” But it was not transmitted to Congress as it should have been. That was because it was said it might have been subject to executive privilege.
“There is a toxic mess at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.” Hakeem then gave a speech that I barely paid attention to. It was now 1:57 pm.
Jason Crow now took the floor. He began by saying the aid hold went public with the August 28 Politico article. After that, officials in the Trump administration redoubled their efforts to get the aid released.
In early September, the White House asked the OMB about holds on other aid. They were fishing for a reason for the hold, as the reasons they gave were illegitimate. They were trying to develop an “after the fact justification.”
On September 12, Sondland told Zelensky the hold had been lifted. He then told him to not do the CNN interview. Zelensky’s statements that there was no pressure are “irrelevant.” He was pressured, and he is remaining under pressure to this day. Ukraine still needs the aid and a White House meeting, as they have not gotten all of the aid they were promised, and the White House meeting never happened.
Trump is inviting other countries to interfere in our elections. “The President doesn’t care about Ukraine but only himself.” And his misconduct continues to this day.
It was now 2:19 pm, and Adam Schiff once again took the floor. He said this would be the last presentation on article one. Then they would take a break.
Schiff began by saying Trump’s “favor” was “exactly what the Framers feared the most.” He then gave Dem talking points.
He then added, “Ukraine is hungry for reform and a stronger relationship with the United States.” He then gave a speech about Russia and Ukraine. He then played a John McCain video of him talking about the importance of Ukraine.
Schiff then gave another speech on the relationship of the USA and Ukraine. He said if Trump continues to act as he does, “We won’t have a single ally left.” He then said Zelensky was working hard at reforms and listed some he had accomplished, but Trump was a threat to them.
Schiff said Trump’s actions harmed our national interests in four ways: 1. He harmed our national security. 2. He harmed our elections. 3. His actions are ongoing. 4. His actions upended our Constitution.
He then said the Mueller report contradicts Trump’s claim that his campaign was clean. Trump welcomed Russian assistance. He refused to accept Russia interfered in 2016. He then played a video of Trump with Putin in Helsinki on July 16, 2018. Trump said, “I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia.” Trump also asked, “What happened to the servers?” And to Hillary’s emails?
I need to comment on this point here, as it will not fit into my defense later. After the uproar over that first sentence by Trump, the next day, Trump said he reviewed the video and realized he had left out the word “not.” He meant to say, “I don’t see any reason why it would not be Russia.” But of course, the media never accepted that explanation.
As for the severs, that is the Crowdstrike issue and why Trump mention it on the July 25 call. He believed the DNC server with Hillary Clinton’s emails had made its way to Ukraine. That is doubtful, but it is why he mention that aspect of Ukraine interference in 2016 on the call.
Also, while on that subject, Russia hacked the DNC server on July 26, 2016. Trump jokingly called for them to do so on July 27, 2016. That contradicts the Dem’s claim the Russians did so in response to Trump’s joke, as they had already did so when Trump made that joke.
In any case, Schiff now gave another boring speech about Russian interference. He claimed “flattery and propaganda” got Trump to fall for Putin’s coup and the Kremlin’s talking points were adopted by him.
Schiff then made another self-righteous speech. He then said to the Senators, “It could be you next.” Meaning, Trump could target any one of them with his ire. Schiff then gave yet another speech on foreign interference in the next election.
Schiff said Trump is an “imminent threat.” He then gave a summary of Dem talking points. He closed by saying, “President Trump has abused the power of his office and must be removed from that office.”...
Chapter Three
My Defense of the President
Before getting to Team Trump’s defense of President Trump, I want to present my own defense. This will enable me to gather together a lot of what has been presented so far in this trilogy. Documentation for my points are scattered throughout the references for all three volumes of this set.
My Defense of President Trump
Trump abused the power of his office to pressure a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival. He did so by conditioning a vital White House meeting and needed military aid to Ukraine on investigating a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election and an investigation into his potential 2020 political rival in order to benefit himself personally and politically. He then obstructed Congress by not allowing witnesses to testify and not handing over documents that were requested by Congress.
The preceding is a summary of the main narrative of the House Managers as to why President Trump should be removed from office. I will now show how I would defend the President on each of these points if I were on Team Trump. This will enable me to summarize the main issues involved in this Senate trial and the points I hope Team Trump brings out in their defense of the President. I’ll be a bit repetitive in my defense in order to emphasize the most important points....
Chapter Four
Day Five of the Senate Trial
Team Trump Presents Their Defense
Part One
This and two additional chapters will overview days five through seven of the Senate Trial of Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States. It was on these three days that Team Trump presented their defense of the President. I will also comment at times on Team Trump’s defense, only so that I can emphasize important points or note points I hadn’t thought of for my defense of President Trump....
Mike Purpura, the Deputy White House Counsel, now spoke. He played a video of Schiff’s parody of the July 25 call. He then commented on it, “That’s fake. That’s not the real call. We can shrug it off and say that was a joke. But that was in a hearing in the US House of Representatives discussing the removal of the President of the United States from office. … That is grave. Let’s stick with the evidence. The actual transcript. The real transcript.”
The Transcript is the best evidence, but it is far from the only evidence showing the President did nothing wrong. There are “six key facts that have not and cannot change.”
1. The transcript shows no link between investigations and security assistance or a presidential meeting.
2. Ukrainians repeatedly said there was no quid pro quo and no pressure.
3. President Zelensky and other Ukraine officials did not even know the assistance was paused until more than one month after the call.
4. Not a single witness said Trump linked investigations to security assistance or a meeting.
5. The security assistance flowed on September 11, and a presidential meeting took place on September 25. But Ukraine announced no investigations.
6. President Trump strengthened US support for Ukraine.
“Each one of these facts alone is enough to sink the Democrats’ case. Combined, they establish what we have known from the beginning—the President did nothing wrong. The President at all times was acting in our national interests and pursuant to his oath of office.
“The facts I am going to discuss are the Democrats’ facts. They say their facts are uncontested. They are not.” Remember, every time I tell you a piece of the evidence they did not, ask yourself, “Why didn’t they tell me that?” They only showed a selective part of the record. The facts were entirely gathered by Dems in a basement bunker.
These are their facts, “not partially, entirely.” Let’s start with the transcript. The President did not link assistance to investigations. “On September 24, Nancy Pelosi called for an impeachment inquiry before she knew what was on the call.” The next day, President Trump took the unprecedented step of declassifying the transcript.
President Trump focused on burden sharing and corruption in foreign aid. “A parade of witnesses testified of corruption in Ukraine.”
Mike now read from the transcript the portion about Germany that I just quoted. He then commented, “that is burden sharing.”
He then mentioned the passage about foreign interference in our election and said, “Nothing wrong with that.” But he said he would talk more on that later. He then read the “same people” passage and said he would also talk about that later. But for now, he said that shows corruption. He said these are “legitimate concerns.”
“But what was not discussed? The aid pause.” But they discussed Javelins. These vital anti-tank weapons were only made available by Trump. They were not part of the pause. Marie Yovanovitch and Tim Morrison verify this point. Mike then showed on screen their comments about the Javelins and their sale not being paused. He then commented, “The Democrats didn’t tell you this.”
Mike then mentioned the “favor” passage and noted that it said “us” and “our country.” He then commented, “Trump was not talking about himself.”
He then said Lieutenant Colonel Vindman raised a policy concern. But the President sets policy. Staff like Vindman carry out that policy.
But who else was on the call besides Lieutenant Colonel Vindman? Lieutenant General Kellogg was on the call. He said, “I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had no concerns.”
The NSA to the President, Jennifer Williams, who works for Lieutenant General Kellogg now says she had concerns about the call. But what they didn’t tell you was “Miss Williams was so troubled, she told exactly zero people of her concern for two months.” It was only after the inquiry was announced that she spoke up.
Morrison said he was only worried about leaks. But he said, “Nothing improper or illegal” was discussed on the call and that he “disagreed with Vindman” and said there was “No demand. No bribe or extortion.”
The Ukrainian government never raised any concerns. Taylor had dinner with Zelensky’s top aid Andriy Yermak. He said the call went well. Volker spoke regularly with Zelensky and others. He said they gave no indication of a quid pro quo. That was the case in that July 26 meeting. There was no mention of any problem with the call. They were not even aware of the hold.
Zelensky confirmed three times it was a “good call” and that there was “no pressure.” Yermak said he had no feeling the aid was connected. That is the “best evidence. In any court. That would be fatal to the prosecution. The judge would throw it out. The case would be over.”
“The House knows that. They say the Ukrainians must have felt pressured.” They seem to think they are mind readers. They say the Ukrainians are untruthful. “Tell me how that helps our foreign policy.”
Mike then cited the August 28 Politico article, which said, “President Donald Trump asked his national security team to review the funding program, known as the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative [USAI], in order to ensure the money is being used in the best interest of the United States.”
Mike then asked, “How can there be a threat if the person being threatened doesn’t know it? There can’t be a quid pro quo without the quo.” Ambassador Volker testified Ukraine didn’t know about the hold until reading about it in Politico. Taylor and Morrison agreed. Mike then played videos of their testimonies to this effect. He then said, “The House Managers didn’t show you this testimony. Why not?”
He then said there were “numerous meetings” with US and Ukraine officials between when the hold began and the Politico article. But the Ukrainians didn’t say anything about the aid hold. He then gave the dates of these meetings. To comment, these are the “five meetings” that House Repubs and I have mentioned many times.
To continue with Mike, he said Volker was regularly in touch with top Ukrainians officials, but there was no mention of the aid hold. But as soon as the Politico article appeared, they asked about it immediately and repeatedly. As such, they would have done so earlier if they knew about it.
“Schiff talked about common sense. And many of us are former prosecutors.” It is just common sense they didn’t know about the pause until after the article. There was no activity before. The article comes out. Then there is a “flurry of activity” after. That is “fatal to their case.”
Mike then referenced the Cooper emails. There are “Two emails that people on her staff received from the State Department from people at the Ukrainian embassy that could have been about US security assistance.” But Cooper couldn’t say if they were about the pause or not. She didn’t even want to speculate. She admitted that the only meeting at which an Ukraine official raised the issue of the security assistance with her was on September 5. Volker’s assistant Croft said they learned about the pause earlier. But she can’t remember those specifics, and she didn’t take notes.
In sum, five witnesses testified they didn’t know about the hold before the article, and common sense verifies that timeline. “They said we need to check our facts. We did. We’re right.” Zelensky and his officials did not know about the hold until August 28.
“Most of the Democrats’ witnesses have never spoken to the President at all, let alone about Ukraine security assistance. The two that did were told in no uncertain terms there was no connection between the assistance and investigations.”
Mike then mentioned about the Sondland call to the President, and the President replying. “I want nothing.” He mentioned about Senator Johnson’s phone call, and the President telling him when asked if there was a connection, “No way I would never do that. Who told you that?”
Meanwhile, Mike said Taylor and Morrison only came to believe there was a connection based on what Sondland told them before he spoke to the President. But Sondland used variations of the words “presume, assume, and guess” over 30 times. Mike then played a video of Sondland using these terms. In that video, Sondland says he was using “guesswork” and that he “presumed” there was a connection. Mike then said that in the Dems’ 21 hours of presentation, they never told you this.
Mike then played the “No one on this planet” video. That video of course has Sondland admitting no one ever told him there was a connection; that it was just his presumption. He then played the Trump, “I want nothing” video.
Mike then said that was the “final word” on this subject. It was collaborated by Senator Johnson, who said the President was “adamant. vehement, and angry” at the suggestion of there being a connection. “But they never told you about Johnson’s letter. Why not? The entire quid pro quo theory is based on the speculation of one person, Sondland. And he was wrong. It does not make it true that he repeated it many times to apparently many people.”
In addition, Hall, Kent, and Volker all testified there was no connection. He then played videos of their testimonies in this regard. Mike then said, “Neither President Trump nor the Ukrainians told them that. They didn’t tell you all this. As it wouldn’t lead to their predetermined outcome.” It was now 10:56 am....
Chapter Eight
Day Eight of the Senate Trial
Senators’ Written Questions
Day One, Part One
This chapter will begin the coverage of day eight of the Senate Trial of Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States. This would be the start of two days of the Senators presenting their questions to Chief Justice John Roberts. He would then read them to the two legal teams. There were to be 93 questions on each day. It is not 100, as many of the questions were submitted by more than one Senator, and several Senators submitted more than one question.
However, I only recorded until 11:00 pm on this day, ten hours after this day of the trial started, but the questioning ran shortly after that. As a result, I missed the final question. But I will cover the 92 questions I recorded in detail. That is why it will take three chapters to fully cover this day. With both sides getting a chance to pontificate on dozens of questions, it will enable the reader to hear both sides on all aspects of this impeachment.
I will keep my comments to a minimum and let each side reply to the other. I will number the questions, so that the reader can easily see where you are at in the progression of questions on this long day.
Eighth Day of the Senate Trial
The eighth day of the trial was scheduled to begin at 1:00 pm EST on Wednesday, January 29, 2020. But when my recording of CNN began at 12:30, they were talking about Kobe Bryant’s death. I discussed that event previously. But after a while, CNN began talking about the impeachment. The trial itself began a bit late, at 1:13 am.
As usual, Chief Justice Roberts called the trial to order, and then Chaplain Barry Black gave the invocation. He prayed:
Divine Shepard, refresh our Senators as they enter a new phase. May they realize that You have appointed them to this great service. and they are accountable to You. Empower them today with the dominant purpose of pleasing You, knowing it is never wrong to do right. … We pray in Your majestic name. Amen.
The Senators then said the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Sargent at Arms gave his proclamation.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R. KY) then took the floor and repeated the rules for this day that he had given the day before. He then said, “The majority will lead off with the Senator from Maine.”
You could then hear Susan Collins (R. ME) talking, but the camera did now show her. But I recognized her voice. She said, “I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Murkowski (R. AK), and Senator Romney (R. UT).” The written question was physically handed through two people to the Chief Justice.
1. Justice Roberts then read it. “This is a question for the counsel for the President. If President Trump had more than one motive for his conduct, such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, the routing out of corruption and the promotion of national interest, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of article one?”
Patrick Philbin took the floor to answer the question. He began, “There are two layers to my answer. First, even if there was only one motive, the theory of abuse of power the House Managers have laid out, that motive alone as a basis for impeachment is constitutionally defective.”
Second, “a mixed motive, personal and public, even more clearly cannot be the basis for an impeachable offense. Even the House Managers specify the standard they have to meet is to show this is a sham investigation, a bogus investigation, there is no public purpose. They talked a lot about the Bidens, a lot about 2016, because they say there is not even a scintilla of any evidence of anything worth looking into there. That’s the standard they have to meet, showing there is no possible public interest.”
But if you have a mixed motive, it can’t possibly be an offense. It would be absurd to have the Senate try to consider, well was it 48% personal and 52% legitimate, or vice versa? You can’t divide it that way. “If there is any possible public interest motive, that destroys their case. All elected officials to some extent have on mind how their decisions affect the next election. Nothing wrong with that. It is part of representative democracy.”
Bottom line, “once there is a mixed motive, a possible legitimate public interest, the Managers’ case fails. And it fails under their own terms. They have totally failed to make their case. We have shown 2016 election interference and the Bidens/ Burisma situation are things that raise at least some public interest. Something worth looking at there. It’s never been investigated in the Bidens’ situation. Lots of their witnesses said there was at least on its face a conflict of interest. That means their case absolutely fails.”
2. Justice Roberts now said, “The Democrat leader is recognized.” That would be Senator Chuck Schumer (D. NY). His question was directed towards the House Managers. It asked about the forthcoming John Bolton book, saying it states the President wanted to continue withholding aid “until Ukraine announced investigations of his political rival and the debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. Is there any way for the Senate to render a fully informed verdict on this case without hearing the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney, and other key eyewitnesses or seeing the relevant documents?”
To comment, after reading the question, it looked to me like Justice Roberts shook his head. I would guess because it was more of a speech than a question. But then, maybe that was just me reading my thoughts into his head.
In any case, Rep. Adam Schiff (D. CA) took the floor to answer this “question.” He stated, “The short answer is no. There is no way to have a fair trial without witnesses. When you have a witness as relevant as Bolton whose testimony could go to the heart of the President’s misconduct, has volunteered to testify, to turn him away goes at odds with being an impartial juror.
“If any part of the President’s motive was a corrupt motive, that is a causal factor in the action to freeze the aid or to withhold a meeting, that would be enough to convict, enough to convict under criminal law. But here there is no question about the President’s motivation. If you have any question, it makes it all the more essential to call the man who spoke directly with the President, who said he wanted the investigations for the aid. These political investigations that would help him in the next election.”
Adam now referenced the Sondland restaurant call and claimed it proved the President’s motives were corrupt. He then said, don’t wait for the book to be released in March. We think the case is overwhelmingly clear without Bolton. But you can erase any doubt.
Adam then played a video, surprisingly, of Pat Cipollone’s defense. It was where Pat was saying Team Trump would give the Senators, “The facts they didn’t tell you. They should give you the facts.” To comment, this was in the context of a reference to previous witnesses. But I think Adam was trying to apply it to future ones.
Adam then played a video with Pat Philbin. In it, Pat was saying “Not a single witness provided any firsthand evidence the President ever linked anything to investigations. Anyone who spoke to the President made clear he said there was no linkage.”’
Schiff then commented, “That’s not correct.” Mulvaney said there was a linkage, as did Sondland.
To comment, it was obvious Adam just used this question to give him the chance to respond to these comments by Team Trump. But it might have backfired on him given what happened next.
Dems Cannot Beat Trump, So They Impeach Trump: Volume Three. Copyrighted © 2020, 2023 By Gary F. Zeolla.
The above book preview was posted on
this website January 23, 2021.
It was updated July 24, 2023.
Alphabetical
List of Pages
Contact
Information
Text
Search
Biblical and Constitutional Politics