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.
