-
Letter from Frances Mills of Glendale in today's Los Angeles Times:
"It didn't take more than a few minutes of listening to the defense of Donald Trump in the Senate to understand that his lawyers are using the President's playbook. His denial always has the same four pillars. First, make the audience mistrust the media. Second, make them also mistrust the Democrats by smearing them. The third pillar is important: tell the audience loudly and repeatedly that you did not do what there is proven evidence you did. Fourth and possibly most importantly, sow fear – fear that you won't find Trump on the 2020 ballot. What trash."
And from Thomas Oatway of Valencia:
"I have listened to the Republicans repeat the GOP talking points on additional witness testimony, falling in line with the President and his defenders. Getting Republicans to admit the President did anything wrong is like asking Trump to tell the truth. It just cannot happen. I predict the Senate trial will proceed without hearing from Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton and without receiving any documents. Then, an acquittal by the Senate will embolden Trump to take even more corrupt acts. This is the banana republic that we have become. Can the voters save us in 2020?"
-
John Bolton kept detailed notes of all his meetings, including the one during which Trump discussed his "quid-pro-quo" scheme to withhold Constitutionally-approved military aid from Ukraine and dangle it as a bribe to coerce Ukraine into investigating his political opponent. King Donald the First, who has told more than 16,300 lies since he's been in office, says no such meeting took place. He's lying, of course. And one of his sleazy lawyers says Trump can't be impeached even if Bolton's account is true. Spoiler alert: Bolton's account is true. Spoiler alert: Trump has already been impeached. Bolton should be allowed to testify at the impeachment trial.
Trump lawyer says Bolton testimony would make no difference, even if his book is true
Yahoo News, Jan 28 2020 4:56 PM
As Democrats continued to demand testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, defense lawyers said today that Bolton’s testimony was irrelevant, because even if his account of his conversation with the President is accepted, the facts don't support a conviction under the Constitution. "You cannot impeach a President on an unsourced allegation," Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow said of Bolton's forthcoming book The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, which disputes a key defense assertion. "Even if everything in there was true, it constitutionally doesn’t rise to that level."
In the book, Bolton describes a conversation in August 2019 with Trump, who told him he was withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine until the government in Kyiv announced an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. That is the crux of the first of two articles of impeachment passed by the House – the "quid pro quo" whose existence the President and his defenders have denied all along. Until the news broke about Bolton's book, which is scheduled to be published in March, the testimony directly implicating Trump in the scheme was mostly secondhand. It is unclear what Sekulow meant by "unsourced allegation," as Bolton's book recounts conversations he personally participated in. Sekulow went on to say that Trump denied Bolton's account.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/202...true/23911418/
-
The crooked, corrupt, dishonest, vain, pompous, narcissistic, self-centered, self-serving, orange-skinned parrot is continuing to squawk his tired old mantras: "Hoax! Witch hunt! Hoax! Witch hunt! Awwrkkk!" His brainwashed, blindly loyal supporters love to hear him talk this way. They believe he can do no wrong and they worship him as if he's a god. Anyone care for some cyanide-laced grape Flavor Aid?
Trump slams Democrats' 'demented hoaxes, crazy witch hunts and deranged partisan crusades,' says they will suffer 'crushing defeat'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elect...eat/ar-BBZpOsZ
-
Dershowitz called Trump corrupt and unpredictable but that was four years ago. Now that Dershowitz is being paid obscene amounts of money to be on Trump's legal team, he appears to love Trump almost as much as Trump loves himself – and who cares about the Constitution and the Presidential oath of office anyway?
Alan Dershowitz called Trump corrupt in 2016 and said he could be corrupt as President
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/polit...ile/index.html
-
Former national security adviser John Bolton can provide first-hand evidence of Trump's quid-pro-quo offer. Mitch McConnell doesn't want him to testify. CNN's Don Lemon today stated the obvious: "In a trial, you have witnesses. Why are Republicans even debating this?" A new Quinnipiac University poll released today shows 75% of Americans want witnesses to testify. That breaks down to 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents and 49% of Republicans. The orange-skinned Tweeter-In-Chief squawked his usual mantra: "The Impeachment Hoax is just another political CON JOB!" Actually, Emperor Trump, the "con jobs" are that you somehow persuaded enough people to vote for you so you could win the Presidency via the Electoral College (which ignored the will of the majority) and then you somehow persuaded Congressional Republicans to sell their souls to you, worship you, protect you, defend you and place you above the Constitution and the rule of law.
Witness fight threatens quick ending to impeachment trial
Senate Republicans are wrestling with a dilemma over witnesses in Trump's trial in a tussle that risks antagonizing him and fueling claims of a cover-up.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/polit...ent/index.html
-
CNN headlines today:
White House has issued formal threat to John Bolton to keep him from publishing book
Alan Dershowitz argues Presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable
Schiff calls arguments against testimony unprecedented
The House manager says both parties should bring witnesses as he states the Senate cannot use privilege to hide impeachable character.
The stories coming out of Trumpworld – the topsy-turvy land of delusions where bad is good, wrong is right, down is up and the Constitution isn't Constitutional – are getting increasingly bizarre as Trump's lawyers and Senate Republicans, all of whom have sold their souls to Donald Trump, continue to insist there's absolutely nothing wrong with Trump withholding Constitutionally-approved military aid from another country and pressuring them to dig up dirt on a political opponent (who is also a United States citizen). Cheating to win an election is just fine 'n' dandy. Trump has done nothing wrong, they insist – and yet they don't want any witnesses to testify at the impeachment trial. Gee, I wonder why. By the way, there is nothing in the Constitution about "executive privilege." That must come as a shock to King Donald the First.
-
Dershowitz isn't dumb. I figure what he's trying to do is prove himself worthy of being appointed Archduke, Grand Prince or Grand Duke by King Donald the First.
Why Alan Dershowitz's outrageous defense of Trump leads to completely absurd conclusions
Cody Fenwick, AlterNet, Jan 29 2020
As President Donald Trump's Senate trial moved on to the question and answer period today, attorney Alan Dershowitz – perhaps the most controversial and inflammatory lawyer on the team – began pushing the White House's arguments to extremes. Of course, choosing Dershowitz in the first place was an extreme – and extremely risky – move. He, just like his co-counsel Ken Starr, represented the highly despised Jeffrey Epstein, among other unsavory figures, and Dershowitz has even been accused by two women of being involved in Epstein’s sex trafficking. Aside from his massive persoaln baggage, he has a tendency to bloviate and take strong positions way outside the mainstream, often to the cost of his own credibility.
He's already taken this tack in Trump's defense, arguing that "abuse of power" cannot be an impeachable offense, despite the weight of academic opinion contradicting him. And today he took this defense to the absurd but necessary conclusion that even if Trump leveraged his Presidential powers to win his upcoming election, it would be improper for the Senate to remove him for this offense. He dismissed the Democrats' argument that because Trump engaged in an illicit quid pro quo to pressure Ukraine to investigate his domestic political rivals, the President must be removed. This is because, he said, Presidents often make foreign policy moves that are designed to help their re-election chances: "If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Many quickly pointed out that this sweeping claim would justify all kinds of misconduct by Presidents. "This is absurd," said Brian Klaas. "Dershowitz is arguing that as long as you believe that you winning an election will be a good thing for the country, you can do pretty much whatever you want – including using public money for personal gain – to help you win. That's not how democracy works." Daniel Jacobson, a former White House lawyer under President Barack Obama, noted: "His argument would mean, for example, that the President could hand out pardons in exchange for campaign donations and that;d be perfectly fine because the President thinks his reelection is in the 'public interest.'" Lawfare's Quinta Jurecic said, "It's worth underlining just how completely bananas this argument is. Nobody but Dershowitz believes this." Sherrilyn Ifill, the president of the NAACP's Legal Defense & Educational Fund, said, "Dershowitz has just articulated a legal justification for a President to declare himself dictator or King,”
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/how...d-conclusions/
-
To Senate Republicans, a vote for witnesses is a vote for trouble
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ble/ar-BBZsBeg
How about this: A vote for witnesses is a vote for truth, a vote for facts, a vote for the Constitution and a vote for the rule of law. Of course Senate Republicans have sold their souls to Donald Trump and some have actually admitted that hearing from witnesses would be a waste of time because they're all going to vote for acquittal anyway. We all knew Senate Republicans would not be the "impartial jurors" they swore to be. They will ensure that King Donald the First remains above the law and above the Constitution, answerable to no one and accountable to no one. все град короля!
-
King Donald the First worships himself. He sees himself as an all-knowing, all-powerful god who can do no wrong. Senate Republicans, all of whom have sold their souls to Donald Trump, see him the same way. They admit he withheld Congressionally-approved aid to Ukraine – but, hey, that isn't wrong. They admit he pressured Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Bidens – but, hey, that isn't wrong. They admit he ignored subpoenas and withheld evidence and ordered his aides to ignore subpoenas – but, hey, that isn't wrong. "Abuse of power"? That isn't wrong. "Obstruction of Congress"? That isn't wrong. Senate Republicans took an oath to be "impartial jurors." How are they "impartial" when they refuse to see anything wrong with Trump's actions? As I read Stephen Collinson's frightening analysis, I recalled the prophecy of Revelation 17:13, "They have one mind and one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast."
Analysis: Republican theory for Trump acquittal could unleash unrestrained Presidential power
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/polit...ion/index.html
-
Congressional subpoenas are useless if they can be defied and not be enforced by the courts. Of course King Donald the First is a dictator and autocrat who does not have to comply with subpoenas. Trump famously declared that Article II gives him the power to do whatever he wants. His lawyers and Senate Republicans agree: Trump is above the law and above the Constitution. He can do whatever he wants – and that should terrify every American.
In contrast with Trump legal team, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham says House can impeach over defied subpoenas
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/polit...ing/index.html
