Yes, he did it, but we don't care. Let the voters decide.
That seems to be the crux of the Senate Republican attitude toward the impeachment issue as a party line vote dismissed a bid to call witnesses and see documents that would support -- or defend against -- the allegations against the president. The vote was 51-49.
"This is the greatest coverup since Watergate," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), calling the episode "a sham." Moreover, when there are no witnesses and no documents, that means there is no trial, he added.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), an impeachment manager, said, "A trial without witnesses is no trial at all."
The opposite view was summarized by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn), who said the Senate should acquit the president of the charges against him and leave the decision to voters.
"The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did," Alexander said in a written statement. "Let the people decide," he added.
So the next critical vote is likely to be next Wednesday, when the Senate will consider whether to dismiss the charges and acquit the president. Coincidentally, that day happens to be the same day he is scheduled to deliver the State of the Union message.
One can only guess whether that will actually happen, and if it does, whether he will claim absolute and total vindication during the speech.
But the evidence remains, and continues to pile up. Eventually, the whole truth will come out.
The Senate impeachment trial may be nearing an end, with increasing speculation on whether witnesses will be called to endorse or defend the charges against the president.
If not, Democrats will charge "coverup," and the trial will end with a likely acquittal.
If so, Republicans will also call witnesses, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, in an effort to distract senators from the core issues in the trial -- whether President Trump broke the law in threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless its president announces an investigation of the Bidens.
If witnesses are called, the trial would drag on for days or weeks, and if the Trump team takes the issue to court, delay could well be months.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that it was a violation of law to withhold aid that that Congress had already approved, thus supporting the charge of extortion. The Republican defense has been that the aid was later released, so it did not matter. Legal experts, however, point out that even a threat of extortion is illegal, even if the threat is later withdrawn.
Meanwhile, the White House is setting up rallies across the country to demonstrate popular support for the president and for his GOP allies who are up for election.
An example would be a rally this week in Wildwood, NJ, where hopeful attendees camped out on the beach boardwalk overnight to be sure of getting a seat. Reminder: It's mid-January.
"When the president does it, it's not illegal." -- Richard Nixon
"I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes." -- Donald Trump
"Article Two of the Constitution says I can do whatever I want. -- Donald Trump.
"If the president does something he believes will help him get elected" that's in the public interest and is not impeachable, according to defense attorney Alan Dershowitz in answer to a senate question.
Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, also maintained that the events documented in the articles of impeachment do not allege a crime, and therefore are not impeachable, much less grounds for removal from office.
And even if the events were criminal, other defense lawyers insist, such things are done all the time and therefore are not impeachable.
Soon it will be up to senators to decide whether the allegations are, in fact, criminal and if not whether they are an abuse of power and therefore warrant conviction and removal from office.
"I'm not a lawyer, but I know what words mean." -- Pug Mahoney
"My words mean just what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty
"How can you make words mean so many different things?" -- Alice
"The question is, which is to be master, that's all." -- Humpty Dumpty
"Therefore, you won't know what his words mean until he tells you what they mean." -- Pug Mahoney
Lawyers argue the meanings of words and, like Humpty Dumpty, claim they alone are the masters and others -- non-lawyers -- cannot know the meanings until and unless a lawyer explains them.
But others do know the meanings of words. They are teachers, writers, journalists, linguists, lexicographers and everyone else who is fluent in a given language. Especially educated native speakers.
For example, you don't need a college diploma to know that lying is wrong.
We see a classic example these days of legalistic maneuvering and debate as defenders of the current president argue to the Senate that even if he did do some or all of the things he is accused of in the articles of impeachment, such things are done all the time, and therefore they do not meet the standard of a high crime or some other misdemeanor.
In an odd way, the lawyers are not denying that the president may in fact have perpetrated some of the things he is accused of doing, but if he did, they are covered by "executive privilege" and therefore are not crimes, and even if they are, he does not have to talk about them and that's why he's withholding documentary evidence and forbidding his aides to testify about them.
Moreover, that's not obstruction, that's executive privilege.
Around and around it goes. Can you say "circular logic"? I knew you could.
It goes like this: It's true because I say it's true, so that resolves the debate and ends the discussion. Therefore we don't need evidence or testimony because my word is enough.
In New Jersey, that's called BS -- Blowing Smoke.
President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a peace plan for the West Bank, but the Palestinian leadership was not part of the announcement.
This announcement came just hours after Netanyahu was indicted on three charges of corruption -- bribery, fraud and breach of trust -- in an Israeli court.
The treaty guarantees Israel control of a unified Jerusalem and does not call for Israeli settlements in the disputed area to be abandoned.
Trump called the plan "a win-win for both sides," but whether it means Israel now has American support to annex the area is sure to be debated.
Israel has occupied the territory since the 1967 war, when it took the region away from Jordan. Since then, Palestinians have fought for their independence or at least equal treatment from the Israeli government.
The impeachment defense team wrapped up its presentation to the Senate today, without really contesting any of the evidence presented but focusing more on the process, claiming it did not meet the standard of an impeachable offense.
And as they have in previous presentations, they used the term "impeached" in a way that suggests the president cannot be considered impeached until and unless he is convicted of the charges against him.
That's curious, because they do not plan on calling any witnesses to rebut the testimony. Strategically, that means that if they do call a witness, then those who brought the charges will have the same right to call witnesses.
Meanwhile, the flap over the new book by John Bolton continues to dominate the news cycle, and the Senate now faces a decision on whether to accept Bolton's comments as part of the trial proceedings.
He has expressed a willingness to testify if he is subpoenaed. But if the Senate does issue a subpoena, the White House is likely to challenge it in court, which would drag out the process well into the election season.
There is also the question of whether the presiding chief justice can or will overrule the subpoena. In turn, that could be overturned by a majority vote of the Republican-dominated Senate.
So the bottom line question remains this: If he is innocent, as he claims, why hide the evidence that would prove it? Instead, it appears that the defense team blocks every move to obtain any documentation from the White House, claiming "executive privilege."
That, however, brings up a legal point: Does executive privilege apply to hiding criminal behavior?
Pressure on the Senate is building to hear witnesses as more evidence is presidential behavior and actions becomes public.
This, even as his defense team begins its presentation to the Senate, primarily attacking the process but insisting that even if he did do what he is accused of doing, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it and is therefore not impeachable.
Note: He was in fact impeached. As of today, he has not been convicted.
Meanwhile, published reports document just how, when and with whom the president met to plan withholding of aid to Ukraine unless its government announce an investigation of political opponents.
Note that the demand does not call for an actual investigation; just an announcement of one.
Former presidential aide John Bolton has written a book about his White House days, and the New York Times obtained a copy in advance of its publication date some two months from now.
By that time, however, the impeachment trial likely could be over, so the book would have no influence on the verdict. But the breaking news has brought more calls for direct testimony from Bolton, and has led some Republicans to waver in their solidarity with party leadership.
Bolton has said he is willing to talk to Congress if subpoenaed. In the past, however, the White House has not only defied subpoenas and told staffers not to respond, but has also gone to court to delay them.
However, rather than spend many more weeks -- if not months -- fighting court battles over subpoenas, House investigators decided to proceed with whatever solid information they had, and they withdrew the subpoenas.
But now defenders seize on that withdrawal as proof of weakness in the case. In doing so, they ignore all the other evidence presented to the Senate.
Defenders have said repeatedly that it was the duty of the House to do all the investigating and gather all the evidence. At the same time, they stressed the importance of a swift probe and a rapid trial, even as they used many delaying tactics.
In doing all that, they ignore the historical reality that the Senate did its own investigating in prior impeachment cases. This tactic is also an attempt to ignore new evidence that was previously suppressed by the White House.
And that in itself -- obstruction of a Congressional investigation into presidential actions and behavior -- is an impeachable offense.
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Or who has a broadcast license. And especially someone who is a news anchor for NPR and has degrees from Harvard and the University of Cambridge and who worked for the BBC before returning to America.
All these cautionary mottos were ignored by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as he stormed out of an interview with Mary Louise Kelly, host of NPR's program "All Things Considered." And because he did not like the questions, he salted his abuse of Kelly with obscenities, according to numerous reports. After he left, aides wanted to take her recording of the interview.
NPR has a solid, well deserved reputation for neutral, objective reporting of the news, and the program Kelly hosts is a prime example of that reputation.
Clearly, Pompeo did not like the questions Kelly was asking. Tough tacos, mate. Journalists ask questions that need to be asked, and while there may be some news outlets that have a bias in favor of a certain political standpoint (you know who they are), NPR is not one of them.
The operation is publicly supported, and runs no commercial advertising. It reports news clearly and concisely, without regard to any political viewpoint. And much as the current White House inmates want favorable (read: propaganda) coverage from every news outlet, the very last one to fall into that trap would be NPR.
So be careful whom you insult, politicos, because that only means sharper pencils. And more air time to expose abusive behavior.
The impeachment trial got off to another blustery start today, with Democrats laying out the chain of evidence calmly but Republicans responding by attacking the process.
It reminded me of the lawyer's maxim: When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, pound the table.
There has been a lot of table pounding as the GOP blocked every proposed amendment Democrats put forth on how to conduct the trial and how and when to introduce evidence and hear witnesses.
Republicans are looking to dismiss the case without hearing evidence or witnesses. If they succeed, it will mean serious trouble for a democracy and a big opportunity for an autocrat.
Unless, of course, he loses re-election. He rigged the last one by way of the electoral college, and unless the Supreme Court ends that way of choosing a president, he will try again later this year.
"Dangerous attack ... brazen and unlawful ... highly partisan and reckless obsession."
That's in just the first paragraph of the president's response to articles of impeachment sent to him by the Senate. It goes on like that for another five pages, but without any specific details.
Maybe that will come from witnesses when the trial gets under way. Then again, maybe not, since Trump and his defenders have refused every request and blocked every attempt to force witnesses to testify in his defense as the investigation went through the House.
And whether the Senate will call witnesses is an open question. The Republican leadership has insisted that the charges have no merit and the case should be immediately dismissed. But if the GOP calls any defense witnesses, that will mean the Democratic accusers will also be able to call witnesses.
There is also the reality that if defenders do call witnesses, they will be under oath and would face punishment if they are not truthful. Meanwhile, defenders can say whatever they like in news media and other public forums, since they will not be under oath and there is no outright legalistic punishment for lying to the press and the public.
Watch for the electoral college to be flunked out of the presidential process.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases challenging the way delegates vote for presidential candidates, and may require all states to side with one method.
Most states require electors to vote for the candidate with the most popular votes, but there are others that leave the choice to individual electors. As it is, the presidential candidate with the higher popular vote can still lose the Oval Office seat as the electoral college vote goes to the competition.
That has already happened several times, including Donald Trump's victory in the electoral voting despite having lost the nationwide popular vote to Hillary Clinton.
The Constitution only says that voters in the several states choose electors, who then meet to select a president. It does not require that electors follow the popular voting choice. That may be a reflection of the times, when those who wrote the Constitution did not fully trust the general population.
Some states do require its electors to follow the popular choice, which makes the procedure little more than a formality. Other states, however, allow delegates to the electoral college to vote as they please, regardless of the will of the majority population.
Challenges in two states have resulted in differing judgments in federal appeals courts, so it now falls to the Supreme Court to decide which method best follows the intent of the founders.
It's not clear yet just when the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case, nor whether the issue will be decided in time for next November's presidential voting.
Life is a series of if-then statements.
The fun and games of political sniping ended as the Senate began the impeachment trial of the current president of the United States, Donald Trump.
The larger question, however, is whether this will see the end of his presidency if he is convicted and removed from office, or whether -- if he is cleared by the GOP dominated Senate -- this will mean the end of the Republican Party.
As early as October 2016, a month before the presidential election, this blog noted the storm warnings that the party was heading for disaster, and spoke of "the kind of political retaliation common to dictatorships around the world, but not found in America."
The question posed then was whether "a demagogue can somehow take the low road to the White House and then wreak vengeance on his opponents."
Monday will mark exactly three years since Trump was inaugurated, and Tuesday will see the active beginning of his impeachment trial in the Senate.
This is an historic time, and the next few weeks will reveal whether the system works, or whether a demagogue can succeed in dominating the government for his own benefit.
If Trump is convicted and removed from office -- assuming he actually does leave or must be physically forced out -- we will know the system works. But if the Senate fails to convict, despite all the evidence pointing to guilt, we may well face turmoil never before seen in America. And that is likely to mean the end of the Republican Party.
It can't happen here, you say?
But it very nearly did, several times, as written about in the actual attempt to oust President Franklin D. Roosevelt, documented by Jules Archer in his book, "The Plot to Seize the White House," published in 1973. And there is the novel "It Can't Happen Here," by Sinclair Lewis, a fictionalized version of the same attempt, as well as "The Plot Against America," by Philip Roth. More recently, there is Madeline Albright's book warning of the danger of "Fascism" encroaching in America.
All this can be avoided if the Senate, currently dominated by Republicans who support the president, decides to convict him of the charges leveled against him and orders him removed from office.
If they do not, then we may see the end of the Republican Party.
Life is a series of if-then statements.
The Senate chamber was quiet today as the impeachment trial of Donald Trump got under way.
There was very little chatting and 99 of the 100 seats were filled as senators heard the articles of impeachment being read, then listened as John Roberts, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, arrived to be sworn in and preside over the impeachment trial. One senator was absent for family illness reasons, and will be sworn in later.
Then each senator answered individually to live up to the oath, and then lined up to sign the oath book.
The formality was solemn. Only twice before in the nation's history has the senate held a trial to determine whether a president should be convicted of the charges against him, removed from office and prohibited from holding other office of public trust in America.
As the formalities ended, Chief Justice Roberts adjourned the proceedings until next week.
Meanwhile, the evidence supporting the case against the president continued to pile up, as more documentation became public that he broke the law by withholding military aid to Ukraine in exchange for support in his re-election campaign. Leading this was a report from the Government Accountability Office specifying that he violated federal law in doing so. The GAO has a solid reputation for being nonpartisan and accurate. Nonetheless, the White House rejected the GAO conclusion.
Now it will be up to the Senate to decide whether to accept the GAO report as evidence, and to decide whether to believe the GAO or accept the president's denial.
It was a busy news day today.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven prosecution managers to handle the Trump impeachment, and the full House voted along party lines to send to the Senate, which was done later in the day.
The prosecution team will be led by Adam Schiff of California, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Jerrold Nadler of New York, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Separately, more evidence has come out documenting the president's pressure on Ukraine -- through his lawyer Rudy Giuliani -- to intervene in the American election. Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate are increasingly dissatisfied with the president's strategy on the Iran issue, and the chamber is likely to put limits on his war powers. Whether the president will veto such an act is something to watch for.
House members are still challenging the Senate to call witnesses in the trial. Nadler said, "Any trial that does not allow witnesses is not a trial, it is a coverup."
There has also been talk that the Senate will dismiss the allegations even before hearing evidence, prompting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say, "Dismissal is a coverup."
The entire process is in large part a reaction to the president's attitude displayed in his comment that "Article II of the Constitution says I can do whatever I want."
A careful read of that part of the Constitution indicates no such thing. Try it.
The document starts by specifying that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President ... (who) shall hold his office during the term of four years," and it specifies how the president be elected.
Next is a list of qualifications for a candidate. That the candidate be a "natural born citizen" (not native born; if one parent is a citizen, the child is a citizen no matter where born), and the candidate be 35 years of age and a resident of the United States for 14 years.
Section 2 then specifies the powers a president has, mostly dealing with appointments and nominations.
Section 3 directs that the president "give to the Congress information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
Note the phrase "recommend to their consideration." This is not to say the Congress must obey.
Finally, Section 4 stipulates that "the president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
That last paragraph is what brings the news of the day to the fore. Nowhere in the section dealing with the presidency does the Constitution say, hint or suggest that person holding the office has unlimited powers.
That would be a dictatorship or a monarchy, which is what caused America to declare its independence in 1776.
And at root, that is what precipitates the current crisis -- to prevent a dictatorship in America.
Republicans have complained early and often about the timeline involved in completing the impeachment process. So let's compare the timelines set by the GOP when President Bill Clinton was impeached.
From the day Clinton denied having sex with "that woman" (Jan. 26, 1998) to the day the House of Representatives impeached him for "lying to Congress" about the affair (Dec, 19, 1998), nearly a full year went by.
The case was forwarded to the Senate, where a trial began Jan. 7,1999. The president was acquitted on Feb. 12, 1999.
The investigation of Donald Trump was shorter, but considering the egregious nature of the allegations, it's not hard to understand the speed of collection.
Moreover, there was less resistance from the White House during the Clinton probe. This is not to say there was great cooperation, but the Administration did not order all staffers to refuse to testify about anything at any time, under any circumstance.
That reflects the Trump attitude about his affairs, ranging from his college grades to his income and his business relationships while in office. He refuses all, even the information that would document just how his personal business interests benefit from his presidential activities.
He keeps insisting that everything is fine and totally legal, but given his documented history of prevarication on so many things so often, there is little to no reason we should believe him now.
The sad thing is that so many of his supporters say we should believe the president because he is the president, and for no other reason.
A classic example of circular logic.
Any suggestion that they should have supported Barack Obama for the same reason is dismissed because "that's different."
How and why it's different is never explained.
The House Intelligence Committee began impeachment hearings on Nov. 13, 2019, after many months of public talk about the need to remove Donald Trump as president.
After several weeks of hearing testimony, the House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment on Dec. 12. The following week, on Dec. 18, the House of Representatives formally impeached the president.
The next move will be for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to name managers for the impeachment trial. That's expected this week, and the Senate trial could begin as early as the next day.
Is the process rushed, as Republicans claim? Talk of impeaching Trump began even before he was inaugurated, and there were several motions quickly made in Congress to begin the process, but Speaker Pelosi sidelined most of them, until the Intelligence Committee began its hearings last November, three years after Trump was elected.
Sufficient evidence to justify impeachment was readily available, and continues to pile up even as the trial is about to begin. Now the question is whether the Republican-dominated Senate will accept any evidence or will it move to dismiss the charges on Day One.
The Senate is likely to get impeachment documents this week, but that's not fully clear. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would name trial managers to present the case to the Senate, but that's doesn't mean they will immediately forward the articles of impeachment. More likely, they will say they need time to review the documents, as well as more recent information that has come out, and to plan strategy on how best to present the case, especially since Senate leaders say they don't want it anyway.
Never mind what the Constitution says.
GOP senators are working closely with the White House on a defense strategy, so the idea of congressional independence is moot for now.
Will it return? If so, when? Perhaps when senators remember their constitutional obligation to uphold the checks and balances required in a democratic society and government.
By the way, have you noticed that members of the Republican Party refer to their opposition as members of the "democrat party"? This implies that the party is not really "democratic."
Copy editors will note that the name of the party is capitalized -- Democratic Party -- and the name of the tradition -- democratic -- is not.
Perhaps some will retaliate by using the term "repo party."
Still waiting for documents to go to the Senate for trial of the impeached president.
Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican and a supporter of the president, says he may go ahead and start the trial anyway, even without the impeachment documents drawn up by the House of Representatives. And he suggests that he and the GOP majority in the Senate will conduct the trial without bothering to call any witnesses.
So if there are no formal charges, no witnesses or testimony, and comments only from the defense and supporters of the impeached president, that yields no meaning to the supposed "trial," and it becomes a sham, to use one of the president's favorite words.
Few people have 20/20 hindsight, and even fewer have 2020 foresight. Nevertheless, many try to predict what the future holds, using what logicians call the "ceteris paribus" assumption. That's Latin for "other things equal," and assumes that nothing changes.
A heroic assumption, at best, because things always change, and you never know which element will change, when, where, why, what will cause it, how and by how much.
There we are with those pesky Five Ws again.
Even so, the "ceteris paribus" assumption is useful, because you never know which element will change or when or by how much. Several months may go by and nothing happens, or there can be a rush of change by one or several elements of reality, leading to victory by the forces of chaos.
Agent 86 would not be surprised.
Anyway, given the events of recent weeks, and assuming governments continue the attitudes and strategies they have shown, it would be a fair assumption that chaos will reign in the Middle East and could well spread to the U.S., though probably not to the level of outright war.
Check the number of "if" phrases in the preceding paragraph. I count four.
So it's up to journalists to try to keep track of what's happening now, what caused the happenings, and what the consequences will be, as well as reporting what politicians and government officials have to say about what they plan to do about it, how, when and why.
Again with the Five Ws.
But it's part of the job, and will remain so as long as government doesn't succeed in controlling what the news media report. Not that they won't keep trying. They have in the past and will in the future.
Danger, Will Robinson!
Someone counted the number of times Donald Trump accused President Barack Obama of planning to start a war with Iran in order to get re-elected.
Now we see Trump launching "preemptive self defense" against Iran just as re-election season begins. It's not an attack, he insists, and is meant to prevent war, not start one.
So how come it's OK for him but not the other guy?
Surely it's only a coincidence that this will distract from the impeachment hassle and call for patriotic Americans to put that issue aside, support the war effort and re-elect the current president.
Sure it is.
