Additional Books by the Director
This three-volume set 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
It began when Trump made a phone call on July 25, 2019, the day after Robert Mueller testified before Congress. A complaint about that phone call led an impeachment inquiry to begin in early September, and the resultant proceedings tore America apart at the seams.
All of these events were occurring against the backdrop of the 2020 Presidential election, which was already well underway, even though the election itself was still over a year away. As will be seen, and as the title of this three-volume set implies, that election was in fact the real impetus for the impeachment.
This trilogy will enable the reader to go back and get caught up on all that you missed. Though this whole fiasco will be over when this trilogy is published, it will be good for Americans to have a history of what happened, as that could affect how they vote in November 2020.
We also will sadly see many similar situations in the future. In fact, that was a talking point of Republicans throughout the impeachment proceedings, that Democrats 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. As such, it is important to remember what happened during this impeachment when the next one occurs.
In addition, this trilogy will help the reader understand the rancor seen in Washington in general and the dishonest bias of the mainstream media. It will be seen that the two sides can look at the same evidence and come to two completely different conclusions.
These three volumes also answer a question the author has often been asked—how can the author, as a conservative Christian, support such a “crude” person as President Trump?
This Volume Two covers the public hearings before the House Judiciary Committee and events that occurred up until the impeachment trial in the Senate.
Paperback: 452 pages (6" x 9" pages). $15.50. Order from the publisher via their website: Amazon.
Kindle Reading Device eBook: 0.79 MB. $4.25. Order and download from Amazon.
Paperback: 452 pages (6" x 9" pages). $14.25. Order from the publisher via their website: Lulu Publishing.
Hardback: 452 pages (6" x 9" pages). $21.25. Order from the publisher via their Web site: Lulu Publishing.
Acrobat Reader® eBook: 438 pages. 3,209 KB. $4.25. Purchase and download from : Lulu Publishing.
EPUB for Adobe Digital Editions Format – $4.25. 363 KB. Order and download from Lulu Publishing.
Note: Different formats and publishers might have different covers, but the content is the same in all of them.
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: Senate Trial and Aftermath (Late January to Early February 2020, Updates Through Summer 2020)
Download the free PDF Reader (Acrobat Reader®)
Purchase the Kindle Wireless Reading Device
Table of Contents
Preface .....……………………………………………….. 5
Section One – 7
Updates and House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Hearings
Mid-November to Early December 2019
#1 – Middle to Late November 2019 Updates ………..... 9
#2 – HJC Hearing with Legal Experts ………………… 41
#3 – Pelosi’s Statement on Impeachment/
HJC Impeachment Evidence Hearing: Part One . 75
#4 – HJC Impeachment Evidence Hearing: Part Two 101
Section Two – 127
Mid-December 2019 Impeachment Events
#5 – Announcement of Articles of Impeachment …... 129
#6 – HJC Debate: Opening Statements .…………… 145
#7 – HJC Actual Debate and Vote ………..………… 163
#8 – Mid-December Updates/ Full House Vote …… 187
#9 – Aftermath of the House Impeachment Vote …. 209
Section Three – 229
Pre-Senate Trial Events
Late-December 2019 to Mid-January 2020
#10 – Christianity Today Editorial …………………… 231
#11 – Hershey, PA Rally …………………………….. 255
#12 – Battle Creek, MI Rally ……………………..….. 275
#13 – Foreign Affairs at the Start of New Year: One . 297
#14 – Foreign Affairs at the Start of New Year: Two . 317
#15 – Pre-Senate Trial Events ……………………… 337
#16 – More Pre-Senate Trial Events ……………….. 365
Appendixes … 397
#1 – Bibliography.……………………………………… 399
#2 – Additional Books by the Author ……………….... 441
#3 – Author’s Websites, Newsletters, Social Sites/
Contacting the Author …………………………… 449
[Page numbers refer to the hardcopy versions]
This three-volume set is a sequel to my book Tearing the USA Apart. That book chronicled events that occurred during the summer to fall of 2018 that contributed to the tearing apart of the USA. These included the proceedings to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the rise of political incivility and violence, and caravans of illegal migrants heading to the US border. That book related all of these events to the 2018 midterm elections.
I then cover various political events that occurred from the winter of 2018-19 through the spring of 2020 on my Biblical and Constitutional Politics website. This book then picks up the story in the summer of 2019 with the beginning of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald J. Trump.
These impeachment proceedings began as soon as the Mueller investigation into alleged Trump/ Russian collusion in the 2016 election ended, culminating in the Mueller report and his testimony before Congress on July 24, 2020. That witch hunt was just one of many attempts by Democrats and the mainstream media (MSM) to disparage and remove President Donald J. Trump from office.
There were also the false claims Trump has dementia and attempts to remove him from office via the 25th amendment, the Stormy Daniels farce, the Emoluments clause schemes, the constant badgering to get Trump’s tax returns, and unending lies about Trump being a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, or some such negative labels. These attempts are chronicled on my politics website and in my Tearing Apart book.
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 pandemic. I discuss that crisis in detail in a section on my politics website titled “Coronavirus Articles and Commentaries.” In this three-volume set, I will only mention the Coronavirus when dates coincide between what was brewing in China and these proceedings.
But here, this impeachment fiasco began when Trump made a phone call on July 25, 2020, the day after Robert Mueller testified before Congress. A complaint about that phone call led to an impeachment inquiry and the proceedings that tore America apart at the seams.
All of these events were occurring against the backdrop of the 2020 Presidential election, which was already well underway in the summer of 2019, even though the election itself was still over a year away. As will be seen, and as the title of this three-volume set implies, that election was in fact the real impetus for the impeachment.
The impeachment inquiry itself began in early September 2020 and ran up until February 5, 2020. This set will mention additional important events that occurred during that time period. It will mostly conclude two days after the close of the Senate impeachment trial, on February 7, 2020. But several updates after that date will be included in Volume III.
The impeachment proceedings involved many days of hearings in the House, with seventeen witnesses testifying, plus additional days for debates. The trial in the Senate lasted thirteen days. Each of those days lasted many hours, sometimes literally all day. In addition, thousands of pages of testimony, reports, and other documents were released.
Altogether, there were hundreds of hours of speaking events and tens of thousands of pages of documents released. I seriously doubt any American watched all of that programming and read all of those documents. That means, most Americans based their decisions and attitudes towards the impeachment on the very bias reporting of the MSM.
However, I did my best to watch and read all of this material and will report about it in this three-volume set. That is why I believe this trilogy is important. It will enable the reader to go back and get caught up on all that you missed. Though this whole fiasco will be over when this trilogy is published, it will be good for Americans to have a history of what happened, as that could affect how they vote in November 2020.
We also will sadly see many similar situations in the future. In fact, that was a talking point of Republicans throughout the 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. As such, it is important to remember what happened during this impeachment when the next one occurs.
In addition, this trilogy will help the reader understand the rancor seen in Washington in general and the dishonest bias of the mainstream media. It will also be seen that the two sides can look at the same evidence and come to two completely different conclusions.
Finally, this Volume Two directly answers a question that was only touched on in Volume One—how can the author, as a conservative Christian, support such a “crude” person as President Trump? It will do so by responding in depth to an editorial in a prominent Christian magazine that argued Trump should be removed from office for his crudeness via these impeachment proceedings.
Middle to Late
November 2019 Updates
Volume One of this three-volume set ended with chapters detailing the hearings in the House Intelligence Committee (HIC) that occurred in mid to late November 2019. This first chapter of this Volume Two will backtrack just a bit and cover events that occurred while those hearings were occurring.
Trump/ Erdoğan Joint Press Conference
A joint press conference between Presidents Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan occurred later in the day on November 13 than originally scheduled. It occurred after the first HIC hearing with Taylor and Kent. Adam Schiff was still holding his post-hearing press conference when he was interrupted by this joint press conference. I had recorded FNC through most of the day, so I recorded this conference. When it started, FNC switched from Schiff’s presser to this more important press conference.
This presser was in follow-up to the Turkish incursion into northern Syria and its actions against certain Kurdish groups and the killing of Al-Baghdadi by US special forces. These events were discussed in Volume One. Other issues were also addressed in this presser, including the impeachment proceedings that were ongoing in the House....
HJC Hearing with Legal Experts
The Hearings moved to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) on Wednesday, December 4, 2019. The HJC is headed by Democrat Rep Jerry Nadler of New York, with Doug Collins of Georgia as the Republic Ranking Member.
This first hearing in the HJC was to be with four legal experts or Constitutional scholars. They are:
Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford University
Noah Feldman of Harvard University
Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina
Jonathan Turley of George Washington University
The first three were picked by the Democrats on the committee, while the last one was picked by the Republicans. But an interesting point is Turley is actually a Democrat who did not vote for Donald Trump, but the Republicans recognized he was an unbiased scholar.
In any case, this format shows the unfairness of this process right from the start. If it were fair, each side would have picked two experts. Or at least, to reflect the Democrat majority, have five scholars, with three chosen by the Dems and two by the Republicans. A 3/2 ratio would be much fairer and more reflective of the distribution of Democrats to Republican’s in the full House, but a 3/1 ratio is very unbalanced.
If it had been fairer, it would have been great to have another unbiased legal scholar like Alan Dershowitz on the panel. Like Turley, Dershowitz is also a Democrat who did not vote for Trump, but in his appearances on FNC, he has spoken out strongly against impeachment and the whole sham process.
Speaking even stronger in both regards is lawyer and investigative reporter Gregg Jarrett. He would have been qualified to be on this panel and would have presented the conservative side even more strongly.
But I guess the Republicans wanted to give an air of fairness by choosing someone who was not so strongly bias as Gregg would be. But the Dems had no such scruples and chose three very bias scholars.
It is due to this unfairness that the White House chose not to participate in this hearing. I think that was a mistake. Though a bias hearing, their presence and ability to ask questions would have helped to make the hearing a bit fairer.
On a side note, FNC reported that HJC Dems held a six hour “mock hearing” the day before this hearing. Why such was needed to prepare to ask legal experts their legal opinions was not quite clear.
But of more importance was this hearing began less than 24 hours after the two impeachment reports were released, one by each side. Together, they totaled 423 pages. There is no way these four legal experts could read all of that material before this hearing began, yet they are expected to articulate if what the Dem report detailed meets the Constitution’s standards for impeachment.
The Dems desire to rush this process is really hurting its legitimacy. That can also be seen in that they never did issue a subpoena to John Bolton, despite the fact he said he would testify if subpoenaed. I guess they were still afraid he would challenge the subpoena and drag out the process even longer.
They also rescinded the subpoena for Charles Kupperman, Bolton’s top aide, even though that had already been approved by the courts. But Dems feared the White House would issue further challenges, further delaying the process. That means, neither Bolton nor Kupperman testified, though Dems could have had their testimony, if they were not in such a rush. That will be very important as we proceed.
It should also be noted that as this hearing began, President Trump was in London for a NATO summit. He had meetings scheduled with additional NATO country leaders, after meeting with several the previous day. Among those was the surprise meeting with Turkey President Erdoğan that was discussed in the previous chapter. But those important meetings were being overshadowed by this forthcoming hearing.
Finally, it was only revealed less than 48 hours beforehand who the witnesses would be. That left the Republicans on HJC with little time to find out the backgrounds of the three Dem witnesses. That was especially the case since none of these three were well-known before this hearing. But those backgrounds are very important, as will be seen as we proceed. Jonathan Turley, on the other hand, is a well-known figure. He often appears on Tucker Carlson’s FNC show. As such, his background was already known.
The Legal Experts Hearing
I thought this hearing was going to be a bore, four legal eagles debating the technicalities of the law. But it actually turned out to be quite interesting. It began at 10:17 am. The chairman opened the proceedings.
Jerry Nadler. D. NY:
Jerry Nadler began by saying for this hearing, the procedures would be similar to the HIC, except there would be no lawyers and there would be ten minutes rounds of questioning, rather than five-minute rounds.
He then said, “I recognize myself” for the first round of questioning. To comment, this was the same as happened with Schiff in the HIC, and it was still weird.
But before Nadler could begin, a Repub interpreted with a “parliamentary inquiry,” but it was denied.
After that interruption, Nadler began, “The facts before us are undisputed.” To comment, not this again! The Dems keep repeating this line, never mind that their “facts” are opinions that are very much under dispute.
In any case, Nadler began by referring to the July 25 phone call and said, “The President asked for favor.” To comment, don’t miss that Trump said “us” but Nadler made it sound like Trump was asking a personal favor.
Nadler continues by saying the phone call was just “a part of a concerted effort to solicit personal advantage in the next election. This time by way of investigations of his political adversaries by foreign government.” To comment, “This time?” There was no first time. But Nadler is talking as if Mueller found Trump/ Russia collision, which he did not.
Nadler continues, “To obtain that private political advantage, he withheld an official White House meeting and vital aid from a vulnerable ally. When Congress found out and began to investigate, Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to cover up his efforts and to withhold evidence.” To comment, nothing “extraordinary and unprecedented” about interbranch disputes.
Nadler: “When witnesses disobeyed and came forward, he attacked them viciously.” This is not the first time. In, 2016, the President welcomed interference from Russia. He then referred to Trump saying, “Russia, if you have Hillary’s emails, we’d like to see them.”
To comment, Dems often call this sentence in a 2016 debate Trump “soliciting” foreign interference in 2016, but it was a joke. I remember that debate, and I laughed when he said that. But Dems consider that joke this major attempt to get a foreign government to interfere in our election. That is how low they have set the idea of “foreign interference” and thus how they can call Trump’s phone call also a solicitation for foreign interference.
Nadler: “Trump took unprecedented steps to hinder the Mueller investigation. To comment, not true. It was so minor, Mueller could not come to a decision on obstruction, then Barr found it did not reach the level of obstruction. That is not “unprecedented” But note, Nadler is slick in not calling it a crime, which it was not, or Congress would have impeached Trump for it, which they did not.
Nadler: The level of interference this time was without precedent. He “vowed to fight all subpoenas. He welcomed foreign interference in 2016, demanded it for 2020. But he got caught.” He then tried to cover up his actions. With Mueller, the nature of the threat was from Russia. The next day after the Mueller testimony, Trump called Zelensky to ask him to investigate hi political opponent.
Is that impeachable? It fits with previous impeachments. He had committed “most of the acts that most concerned the Founding Fathers.” First of these is “foreign interference in our elections.” Jerry then gave a couple of quotes from the Founders.
He then said it was all for Trump’s “petty personal gain. The facts are clear. He invited foreign interference in our elections. He demanded interference in our elections. He endangered our national security. It doesn’t matter he got caught and released the funds. It doesn’t matter he feels these investigations are unfair. It matters he used his office to obstruct investigators at every turn. We cannot wait for the next election to address this present crisis. The integrity of that election is at stake. He will try again. We recommend impeachment to the House if it is shown Trump committed treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
To comment, don’t miss that last point. That is the constitutional standard. Remember that as we proceed.
At this point, another parliamentary inquiry by the Repubs was denied by Nadler.
Doug Collins. R. GA:
Doug began by saying the “parliamentary inquiry is part of what I will discuss today.” We now have a “new room, new rules, and new staff. What’s not new is the facts.”
“It is the same backstory. We are back to Mueller. We didn’t take Mueller’s report and take up hearings about it. We didn’t do it. Nadler quoted the Founder’s concern about foreign influence but not about political impeachment. Because you just don’t like the guy. The chairman has talked about impeachment since he was elected chairman over a year ago, in November 2018 before he was sworn in as chairman.”
“This is nothing new folks. This is sad. So what do we have. It’s not about facts.” They were already drafting articles before phone call. “What is driving this? The clock and calendar.” They want to get it done before the end of the year; they are scared they will lose the election next year. America will see most representatives don’t go to law school.
“The witnesses could not have digested Schiff's report from yesterday in any real way. We can be theoretical all we want, but the American people will say ‘Huh?’ There are no fact witnesses scheduled. I asked for a witness, but it didn’t go well. The whistleblower is not given protection of identity.” Schiff is not testifying, as he should.
Calls for impeachment began with the Washington Post 17 minutes after Trump was inaugurated. The whistleblower’s attorney called for impeachment. Al Green said we need to impeach him, or he will win reelection.
“We just found out the names of the witnesses less than 48 hours ago. What a disgrace to this committee. No offense to the law professors, but the President had nothing to ask you.” That is why he did not send his lawyers. “Put witnesses in here we can cross examine with facts. This is a sham.”
Doug then gave Nadler quotes from 1998 and the Clinton impeachment. Nadler had said back then, “There must never be a partisan impeachment.” Doug then said, “They poll tested what they should call what they think the President did. Wow. That’s not following the facts.” They have a hatred for a man who is doing what he said he would do. This is “a railroad job. It started with tears in 2016.”
Doug then made a motion to require Schiff to testify. Nadler then took a voice vote to table the motion. Nadler said the “Ayes have it.” But Repubs asked for a roll call. All the Dems said yes; all the Repubs said no. It was passed 24-17, meaning Schiff would not need to testify.
Andy Biggs (R. AZ) then made a parliamentary inquiry. He asked if it would be permissible to make an objection to the admissibility of testimony and evidence? If they would be following the federal rules of evidence? Nadler wouldn’t answer those questions. He just said the rules of the House would be applied.
Andy then asked what the schedule ahead would be? Nadler said that was “not a proper inquiry.” ...
Pelosi’s Statement on Impeachment/
HJC impeachment Evidence Hearing
In this chapter, I will cover two events. The first is Nancy Pelosi’s statement on impeachment that was given the day after the Legal Experts Hearing. The second event occurred a few days later. I am calling it the Impeachment Evidence Hearing. Coverage of that hearing will continue into the next chapter....
Impeachment Evidence Hearing Background
Another hearing was scheduled in the HJC for Monday, December 9, 2019. But it did not involve witnesses. Instead, it was time for both sides to present their cases. However, the White House chose not to participate in the hearing....
FNC explained the format for this hearing would be lawyers from each side would present evidence from the HIC hearings to the HJC. They said to look for clues as to the articles of impeachment. Will Mueller be mentioned? Will treason be mentioned? The Repub lawyer would once again be Stephen Castor, and the Dem lawyer will be Daniel Godman. But the White House lawyers chose not to participate.
Also not participating would be Adam Schiff. Instead, one of Schiff’s staffers would present his side. That also angered the Repubs, as will be seen. As the hearing started, a sign was seen behind Castor reading, “Where’s Adam?”
Jerry Nadler Opening Statement:
Before the Chairman could even get out a word, there was an objection by a Repub member. Jerry just noted it and went on.
Jerry explained there would an opening statement from each side, from the Chairman (himself) and the Ranking Member (Doug Collins). Then there would be 30 minutes from lawyers for each side of the HJC. Then there would 45 minutes of evidence from each side from lawyers from the HIC. Then there would be 45 minutes of questions from each side, from the Chairman and Ranking Member. Then five minutes rounds of each member of the HJC.
There were then shouts from the gallery. Jerry reminded the audience they were here to observe not to participate. He then repeated the procedures. He made sure to note, the President’s counsel was the given the right to participate but declined.
Jerry then said, “I recognize myself for an opening statement.” To comment, I will reiterate one last time how weird that is.
Jerry began, “No matter his party or politics, if the President places his own interests above those of the country, he betrays his oath of office. We all have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. If the President places himself above the country, he has broken his oath. Our oath then requires we come to the defense of our country. The Framers knew the potential dangers we might face, that the biggest threat might be from within. They wrote ‘Treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors’ to cover all possible misconduct.” Mason said that includes, ‘Great and dangerous offenses against the Constitution.’” That included abuse of power, foreign entanglements, or corruption of public office. “Any one of these would compel impeachment. Combined, they are the strongest possible reason for action. President Trump put himself above country.”
Jerry then said there was some “common ground. We agree impeachment is a solemn, serious undertaking. We agree it is meant to address serious threats like to our free and fair elections. We agree that when elections are threatened by enemies foreign and domestic. We agree no President should put himself above the country.”
He then claimed there was a “common set of facts.” On July 25, the President asked for a favor. To comment, Jerry didn’t mention that the President said for “us” and “our country” though he also didn’t say he said “me.” But the way he worded, it made it sound like that was the case. He seemed to avoid that wording, as he knew the Repubs would call him out on it, but he also did not fully present what the President actually said.
In any case, Jerry continued, “That call was to compel an announcement of an investigation, not of corruption in general, but of Trump’s political rivals and only his political rivals.” To comment, those are not “facts.” They are opinions, and they were never proven by any witness.
Jerry continues, Trump “withheld military aid and a White House meeting.” All the witnesses say the aid was withheld to pressure Ukraine to do him that favor.” To comment, no they did not. Or at least, if they did, it was their assumption, not based on anything the President said.
Jerry continues, “President Trump put himself before country. The President got caught. He took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to conceal his conduct from Congress. These facts are not in dispute.” To comment, yes they are. Every one of them, and very much so.
Jerry continues, “Every fact alleged by the WB have been substantiated by multiple witnesses.” They match the President own words. To comment, no they haven’t, and no they don’t.
Jerry continues, Trump’s “demand for investigations was part of his personal, political agenda, as testified by various witnesses. And not related to foreign policy objectives of the United States.” To comment, not one witness verified that based on firsthand knowledge. And the President sets that policy, not lifetime bureaucrats, even if they seemed to think they did.
Jerry continues, “Multiple witnesses testified he intended to withhold the aid until Ukraine announced the investigations.” They also testified it was a quid pro quo. To comment, no they didn’t, and if they did, it was their assumption. Again, the Johnson letter proved otherwise.
Jerry continues, the Repubs argue the process is unfair. But Trump was invited to this hearing but chose not to participate. To comment, after not being allowed to participate for the first 71 days of the inquiry.
Jerry continues, we will hear about the speed of proceedings, but the integrity of our next election is at stake. “Nothing is more urgent.” Trump welcome interference in 2016 and demanded it for 2020. Then he got caught. His pattern of conduct is a continuing risk to country.
To comment, Jerry is speaking as if Mueller found that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. But in fact, its primary conclusion was that no member of Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
I have included comments throughout Nadler’s speech, as his every statement was questionable or an outright lie. I won’t continue to comment on every remark by a Dem, but I wanted to point out that every statement they make with unambiguous authority is in fact a questionable opinion on their part. From here, I will mostly let the Repubs do the fact checking of the Dems’ comments.
Unanimous Consent and Point of Order Requests:
At this point, Repubs made several unanimous consent requests, but they were all ignored by Nadler. Then they made a point of order about the minority day of hearings. They said it was against the rules that Nadler has refused to schedule it.
Nadler replied that it was “not a proper point of order. I am considering the request. The point of order is not timely.” To comment, you have got to be kidding! The case is ready to be closed. The vote will occur in the full House after this hearing. And that will be the end of the House’s role in the impeachment. How can you have minority witnesses after the case has been closed?
Doug Collins. R. GA:
Doug began by making the very same point I just made. “Well, that got us started again. It is timely, and it is not up to his discretion. But he hasn’t cared about that from the start to begin with.”
“Let’s start over.” Doug then gave “famous lines from previous impeachments. “What did the President know, and when did he know it? I did not have sex with that woman.” But he asked about now, “Where’s the impeachable offense? Why are we here?” He called it a “focus group impeachment.”
Doug then said, “We don’t have a crime, anything to pin down. They want to make sure the President can’t win next year.” He then repeated his line that “the clock and the calendar” are driving the speed of this impeachment. The Speaker has said to write articles of impeachment. “Go ahead and write them. The Chairman made a number of amazing claims, none of which the American people can say there is compelling or overwhelming evidence.”
He again asked, “Why are we here?” He then said there are “three elements of a crime: motive, means, and opportunity.” Their motive is 2020. “If we don’t impeach him, he’ll win again next year.” That was shown in last week’s job report. They started with impeachment, then spent two years trying to figure out what to impeach him on. The “means” became what we see now, to always say impeachment, to always say he is illegitimate. To constantly tear down a President who is working on behalf of the American people. “Opportunity?” It was last November when they got the majority. They began their impeachment run. The Chairman said then he was the man for impeachment.
“Presumption has now become the standard for evidence.” Or inference, as three of the scholars testified. The whole case is built on Sondland. “He testified he presumed the aid was conditioned on investigations, but he said no one ever told him that.”
Doug continues, “Sondland even asked the President directly. He said, ‘I want nothing.’ Ukraine did nothing and got the aid anyway.” How do we know there is bias? “Schiff, who is not here today because he can’t back up his report, made up the call.” If he didn’t make it up, it didn’t sound as bad. “Make up some dirt. That’s not what was said. Schiff misled the American people.” To comment, Doug is referring to Schiff’s “parody” of the July 25 call that was discussed in Volume One.
Doug continues, this is the most massive malpractice I have ever seen. “They don’t care what is actually in the transcript. What happened. Schiff also said collusion is in plain sight. I may end up on the next phone records subpoena. We’ve taken a dangerous turn in this Congress.” Subpoenas are fine, if properly done. But never for a political vendetta. Turley testified presumption is no substitute for truth and that the basis for this impeachment is woefully inadequate.
The Mueller report and hearing didn’t go very well. “Today is the movie version of the Schiff report. But the star witness failed to show up. Nunes and his staff is here. But where is Schiff?” He sent his staff instead. “I guess that is what you get when you’re making it up as you go. This committee is not hearing from fact witnesses, just law professors and staff.” The President is not here as there are no witnesses to question. This institution is in danger. It is being used as a rubber stamp for the Speaker and the HIC.
Rep. Al Green has said, “We can keep impeaching him over and over again.” And keep investigating. Why? “They have the means, motive, and opportunity.” It’s about a clock and a calendar. They can’t get over Donald Trump is POTUS, and they don’t have a candidate who can beat him. It’s all political. To comment, that last comment is the reason of the title of this three-volume set....
Announcement of Articles of Impeachment
This chapter will cover the announcement of the articles of impeachment. It will then cover the debate and vote in the HJC.
Background to Articles Announcement
At 9:00 am on Tuesday, December 10, 2019, the House formally announced the two articles of impeachment. The announcement was made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler, and HIC Chairman Adam Schiff.
They were flanked by House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D. CA), House Committee on Oversight and Reform (HCOR) Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D. NY). and one other Dem (a man) whose name I did not catch.
But I want to single out Maxine Watters, even though she has not been mentioned previously and did not speak. The reason is, she has been calling for Trump’s impeachment for the past two years, chanting “Impeach 45! Impeach 45!” at many of her rallies. (“45” of course refers to Trump being the 45th President of the United States.)...
HJC Debate Opening Statements
This chapter will cover the opening statements for the impeachment debate in the House Judiciary Committee (HJC).
HJC Impeachment Debate
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019, the HJC held a day-long behind doors debate on impeachment. Then at 7:00 pm, the debate was made public. But that evening, it was not a real debate. HJC members on each side just gave their openings statements.
At that point, it was almost 11:00 pm. The hearing was adjourned until the next morning.
The hearing resumed at 9:00 am Thursday morning. Then it turned into a real debate. It continued for almost 14 hours, until almost midnight, yes fourteen hours!
A vote was supposed to be taken after the debate ended. But at that point, HJC chairman Jerry Nadler declared it was too late to take a vote, so they tabled the vote until 10:00 am they next day.
Republicans on the committee were furious. Some had already made travel plans for Friday morning, and others said the delay was just so the vote could be taken when more people would be watching. Thus, the whole thing was just about TV ratings.
Whatever the case, between the almost four hours on Wednesday and almost 14 hours on Thursday, the debate lasted almost 18 hours.
The opening statements Wednesday evening aired on CNN but not on FNC or MSNBC, so I recorded it on CNN and watched it later.
The debate on Thursday was initially aired on all three networks, so I recorded it on FNC to watch later. But at 6:45 pm, FNC had moved from covering the debate to commenting on it, so I missed the proceedings after that point. But I caught enough of it to still make it worth covering in detail in this chapter.
I then started recording FNC at 10:00 am on Friday to catch the vote. But at this point, I still had not watched all of the hearings from two weeks before and various press conferences I had recorded and was running out of space on my DVR.
The point of this all is, between the many hours of this debate and vote, the dozens of hours of hearings, and all of the press conferences, I doubt any American watched all of any of this. That means, most Americans are basing their decisions and attitudes on impeachment on the very bias reporting of the media.
But I did my best to watch as much of all it as I could and report about it in this three-volume set. That is why I believe this set is important. It is enabling the reader to go back and get caught up on all that you missed. Though the whole fiasco will be over when this set is published, it will be good for Americans to have a history of what happened, as that could affect how they vote in 2020. We also sadly will see similar situations in the future. In fact, that was a talking point of Republicans in this debate, 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.
Even the NYT agrees with this assessment:
News analysis: “Fears are mounting that presidential impeachment might, like the filibuster, become a regular feature of America’s weaponized politics,” our chief Washington correspondent writes (Daily Briefing, 12/13/19).
Conservative commentator Mark Levin goes even further:
Literally every president who crosses the House of Representatives in the future, under the standardless procedures they have in place with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress is subject to potential impeachment if they do not bow to the will of the majority in the House of Representatives….
Let me tell you something: every past president who would be subject to impeachment under the current articles being debated in the House of Representatives (Real Clear).
What this means is, this three-volume set will be important for a long time to come, as it will be good to remember what happened this time, the next time a President is impeached.
That said, the format for this hearing was different from previous hearings. There were no witnesses to question. Each one of the 41 members of the HJC had five minutes to present his or her case. But they were not limited to speaking only once, as it was supposed to be a debate, so one person could respond to what a previous person said, though they were not supposed to interrupt each other. With each member speaking, some multiple times, that is how you ended up with 18 hours of proceedings.
HJC Impeachment Debate
With that background, it is no time to overview what happened during this marathon impeachment debate. There are 41 members of the HJC. That is why the previous hearing and this one lasted so long, with each member getting a chance to pontificate.
I won’t cover every speech, as that would get too tedious. But I will try to cover enough for the reader to understand the basic arguments back and forth. There will still be a couple of hearings in the House, but I will only cover them in brief, as they will just repeat what is said in this hearing.
Since this was a real debate, I will mostly forgo commenting myself and let each side respond to the other side itself....
Christianity Today, The Christian Post, and President Trump
On December 19, 2019, Christianity Today (CT) magazine editor Mark Galli published an editorial saying Trump should be removed from office. A couple of days later, The Christian Post (CP) published a rebuttal to the CT editorial. Then a couple of days after that, CT published another editorial, this time by Timothy Dalrymple, in defense of Galli and in response to the CP.
After I saw the initial CT editorial, I wrote my own response. Then after the second CT editorial, I added to my response. In this chapter, I will first present quotes from the first CT editorial and my comments that mostly focus on the ongoing impeachment debacle. Then I will present quotes from the second CT editorial with my responses. They will focus mostly on Trump’s character in general. I will open then close with an extended quote from CP’s editorial.
These issues are important for Christians to consider, as the claim by CT is that evangelicals are hurting their witness for Christ by defending Trump, while CP claims that not to do so would hurt our witness. My comments show there is much at stake for Christians in this debate....
Hershey, PA Rally
It just happened that President Trump held a rally in my home state of Pennsylvania later in the day after the articles of impeachment were announced. It began at 7:00 pm, Tuesday, December 10, 2019 and was held in Hershey, PA, “The Chocolate Capital of the World.”
As always, I recorded the rally on FNC, as CNN and MSNBC never carry Trump’s rallies. But even FNC only aired the first half an hour of the rally. But that was enough to get Trump’s comments about the impeachment proceedings.
I was then able to watch the rest of the rally on WTAE’s website, my local ABC affiliate. I also reviewed various media reports on the rally. In this chapter, I will review this rally, as it encompasses Trump’s response to the articles of impeachment and his comments on many other issues. The speech lasted one hour and sixteen minutes.
Trump tweeted beforehand, “On my way to Hershey, Pennsylvania for a rally. See everyone soon. I love Hershey chocolate!” Who doesn’t?
Note again that I am not providing a word for word transcript. I am paraphrasing and summarizing Trump’s comments for the sake of space. In this way, you will get the gist of Trump’s comments without having to read the full transcript or to sit through the 1:16 rally, though that would be worth doing. Only when I use quotation marks or block quotes am I quoting the President word for word. This format also enables me to provide running commentary, with my comments prefaced by “To comment.” Brackets indicate crowd reactions and other visuals....
Foreign Affairs at the Start of the New Year
As the New Year dawned, 2020 was looking to begin with a trial in the Senate to try President Donald J. Trump on the articles of impeachment passed by the House. However, Nany Pelosi still had not sent the articles to the Senate. That set the stage for more fights before the trial could even begin. But world events took center stage.
Pre-Senate Trial Events
Despite the more important world events chronicled in the two previous chapters, 2020 was still looking to begin with a trial in the Senate to try President Trump on the articles of impeachment passed by the House. However, Nany Pelosi still had not sent the articles to the Senate.
Dismiss the Case?
As the New Year dawned, Dems were still repeating their mantra, “If the President has nothing to hide, let the witnesses testify.” But now they were adding, “Be transparent.” In saying such, they seemed to forget they had their chance in the House, but they were in too much of a rush to do a full job. They also seemed to forget the Senate is controlled by Repubs, and they would run the Senate trial how they wanted, not how the Dems wanted....
Conclusion to Volume Two
With these final updates, I have concluded my discussion of all of the post-House and pre-Senate trial events. In Volume Three, I will cover each day of the Senate Trial in depth. It was shaping up to be a contentious trial, with both sides prepared to argue their case was “overwhelming” and on the side of the Constitution, while the other side was trying to run roughshod over the Constitution. It will be an interesting debate, though a bit tedious at times. But I will try to keep it as interesting as possible in my coverage, while still providing all of the important details of all that happens and is said.
The above book preview was posted on this website September 4, 2020.
Alphabetical List of Pages Contact Information
Text Search Biblical and Constitutional Politics