Maybe the approaching hurricane will supplant the excited COVID-19 reporting for a couple of days.  That would be a welcome respite.  Every news report begins with “spikes,” “hot-spots” and concerns that some are not doing all they can to “keep everyone safe.”  Talk about a divided country!  You can get yourself hurt depending on the “message” you send when leaving home.

   It was shocking to see the treatment that the Attorney General received from the Judiciary Committee this week.  It was beyond rude.  Many “representatives” called him names and leveled utterly unjustified accusations at him, then refused to let him respond.  They shouted him down and claimed they controlled the “time.”  At one point of complete exasperation, Mr. Barr allowed as how he thought it was a “hearing,” and he was the one to be heard.  WRONG!  He was supposed to sit quietly while they accused him continuously without ever responding.  The chair’s hammer nearly got broken over some members not wearing their masks properly.  It was as embarrassing as nearly anything we’ve seen.  Well, almost.

It seems that we’re watching helplessly as many “authorities” all around the United States stand with the “mostly peaceful protesters.”  You know, the ones with black helmets and backpacks loaded with various incendiary devices and projectiles. Maybe those gut-wrenching images beamed from our big cities are just a “myth.” Never mind what you think you’ve seen, repeat the catch-phrases and take a knee.  It’s beginning to look like the “authorities” actually want the destruction to take place.  Nobody better obstruct the “protests,” lest they be called “stormtroopers.”  Not that the “stormtroopers” were doing much other than playing defense anyway.

Some national agency type police had been sent to Portland, where they were accused of every evil intent imaginable.  They’ve been called off as of late, and “state police” will now be responsible for the security of public buildings including the Federal Courthouse.  Maybe the arsonists will give it a rest now that the “stormtroopers” are gone.  Sure they will.

We’ve all heard of the “1619 Project.”  It’s a work of journalistic fiction promoted by the N. Y. Times, awarded by the Pulitzer Prize Board, and expected to be taught as part of a “history” curriculum across America.  It endeavors to say that all U. S. founding documents are invalid, and credits slavery for the national wealth.  Even the authors have said that it’s NOT HISTORY, but a work of “journalism.”  That’s perfect for the age in which we live.

With very few exceptions the corporations represented by our household products, familiar retail chains, food franchises, entertainment conglomerates, newsprint outlets and TV networks side with those who are working to destroy the American way of life.  Anybody who steps out of line in any form of communication is banned, fired and held up to public ridicule.  That’s where we are with free speech. It’s been outlawed by the public sector.  These self-righteous entities are out to purge everything the mob calls “racist,”  which is pretty much everything you can think of.

Who will stand up?  Nobody in harm’s way of any national conglomerate, that’s who.  Disagree with the communist narrative, and they’ll see that your life is ruined.  The examples are many.  It doesn’t even matter what someone may or may not have meant, social media will decide if you’re allowed to participate, and often destroys the ability of some unlucky American to earn a living.  You can’t afford to participate in the public square unless you symbolically take a knee, and agree with people who believe in “micro-aggressions” and omnipresent American racism.

The NBA took a knee at a game last night.  All the players, the coaches and even the referees!  The NFL will do likewise.  What do they care?  Their futures exist in China.  My suggestion is that they move the whole operation over there, and just once imply something negative about the communist leadership.  If ballplayers are going to run interference for communism, they ought to have to live under it.  We have no such intention, especially not here.

This isn’t the United States of yesteryear.  Everything has been turned on its head.  Who knew that freedom was the “myth”?  Governors, mayors and county commissioners will decide whether you come outside or not, go to work or not, take the kids to play or not, and you will wear a mask and abide by all quarantine mandates or be accosted or arrested.  American freedom is under attack from all directions.  The mob, the “authorities” and the media have all officially determined what we will and won’t do or they’ll cancel somebody’s future.  We’ll see how they feel about it when THEY GET CANCELED.  And they will.  Maybe they think they’ve got not only the mob, but the majority of people and the media on their side.  It’s doubtful that’s true but even if it were, it won’t matter.  May they enjoy their time siding with what they perceive to be the “majority” while it lasts.  This thing is not unlike the French Revolution, in that new offenses against the narrative keep getting raised, and every time they do everyone has to go a little further with their appeasement efforts.

Meanwhile, some 12,000 American troops are to be transferred out of Germany.  Mind you, there’s been an American presence in Germany since the end of World War II.  But Germany has apparently not lived up to promises made on funding its own defense.  President Trump says Germany is “delinquent,” and the U. S. will no longer be responsible for funding its defense.  News outlets are predictably alarmed that NATO is being undercut, and that this is a “gift to the Russians.”  They’re grieved about the expense and the time squandered in the move.  But Trump plays hardball.  He expects promises to be kept, otherwise he’ll take matters into his own hands to every extent possible.

Iran is playing offense again.  You can find reports of them test-firing missiles at a mock-up of a U. S. aircraft carrier.  But Iran hardly rates a mention in the midst of the COVID-19 excitement.  After all, this is the one thing that just might bring down the United States.  And that’s what the mainstream is demanding.

Who’s going to draw the line?  It looks like the whole American experiment is on defense.  It was months ago when this update said things might get ugly.  Have things ever gotten ugly! It appears that major segments of the economy will remain shuttered until everyone takes a knee, buys into the 1619 narrative and sides with the anarchists.  Whether some remaining hope of law and order prevails over the nearly universal corruption is anybody’s guess.  Not only have the national agencies been corrupted beyond all recognition, the courts (in many cases) are no longer dependable.  All bets are off.  Well, almost all.  We didn’t want to have to wait for Jesus Christ to have to come down here and straighten everybody out.  But that may be our last hope.  If all else fails, it’s a sure thing.

Mark

Source: http://www.intercontinentalcog.org/fridayupdates.php

The post Weekly Update by Mark Armstrong – 31 July 2020 first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Attorney General Bill Barr clashed with Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday over accusations that he is carrying out President Trump‘s political wishes, as he appeared for a long-awaited hearing where tensions also flared over protests and riots following George Floyd’s death in police custody.

The hearing, originally scheduled for 10 a.m. local time, was delayed after committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., was in a car accident. Nadler did not suffer any injuries.

Once the hearing began, which lasted until mid-afternoon, Nadler did not hesitate to express his scorn for Barr and his Justice Department.

NADLER INVOLVED IN CAR ACCIDENT BUT UNHURT; BARR HEARING DELAYED

“Thank you for being here, Mr. Barr,” Nadler said with a note of sarcasm, pointing out that this was the attorney general’s first time appearing before the committee.

The chairman went on to claim that Barr and his department have “downplayed the effects of systemic racism” in the wake of Floyd’s death and ongoing protests.

Addressing the department’s approach to cases related to the Russia probe, Nadler summed up the DOJ’s attitude by claiming that “the president’s enemies will be punished, his friends will be protected,” no matter the cost, and saying that the DOJ’s actions have caused “real damage to our democratic norms.”

“In your time at the department, you have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president,” Nadler said.

Ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, fired back in his opening that Democrats’ hostility toward Barr is based on one thing: “Spying.”

Jordan said that Democrats took exception to Barr accusing the Obama administration of spying on the Trump campaign, despite evidence that has come out revealing flaws in the FBI’s process in acquiring a warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Jordan also pointed to evidence that the FBI engaged in questionable tactics in investigating Michael Flynn, whose criminal case the DOJ requested be dismissed. At another point in the hearing, Barr affirmed earlier reporting that he has appointed U.S. Attorney John Bash of the Western District of Texas to investigate the practice of “unmasking” Americans who have had conversations with foreign officials.

Jordan then addressed the ongoing unrest in the U.S., showing a lengthy montage of media clips that began with reporters calling the incidents “peaceful protests” and then going into a string of clips of violence and fires in various parts of the country.

Barr, speaking next with his opening remarks, did not shy away from Democrats’ accusations against him. He insisted that he acts independently of the president and that his goal is to make sure that everyone is treated equally under the law.

He emphatically stated that Trump “has not attempted to interfere” in decisions regarding the handling of criminal matters.

DEM IMPEACHMENT LAWYER DINGS NADLER’S ‘INEFFECTIVE’ QUESTIONING OF BARR

“On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right,” he continued. “That is precisely what I have done.”

Barr also addressed the racial tension following Floyd’s death. While acknowledging the tragedy, he defended the criminal justice system by arguing that in the past 50 years progress has been made and that any racism on the part of individual officers is not due to “some deep-seated racism generally infecting our police departments.” He noted that “[p]olice forces today are far more diverse than ever before.”

BARR SAYS LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR YOUNG BLACK MALES IS HOMICIDE: ‘THOSE LIVES MATTER’

The attorney general responded by recent calls to defund police as “grossly irresponsible.”

Barr also spoke out against “violent rioters and anarchists” that he said have “hijacked legitimate protests,” specifically mentioning the ongoing unrest in Portland as an example.

The Trump administration has been blasted in the media for sending federal officers in to quell the unrest, but Barr defended the effort, arguing that these are not peaceful protests, but “an assault on the Government of the United States.” He described the weapons that some demonstrators have used and noted that a federal courthouse has been under siege.

The tension only escalated once the questioning began, with Nadler implying that Barr was using federal forces responding to unrest to provide material to aid Trump’s campaign.

When asked if he has discussed the campaign with Trump, Barr answered sharply, stating, “I’m a member of the Cabinet and there’s an election going on, obviously the topic comes up,” adding that “it shouldn’t be a surprise.”

Nadler later accused Barr of using federal forces to provide Trump with footage for campaign ads. When Barr tried to respond and say that he was not using federal law enforcement to help Trump’s campaign, Nadler spoke over him.

Later in the hearing, Barr got an opportunity to explain federal activities in Portland.

PROTESTS FLARE UP IN TEMPE, ARIZ. AND AUSTIN, TEXAS – AS PORTLAND SEES 61ST CONSECUTIVE NIGHT OF UNREST

“Federal courts are under attack. Since when is it OK to burn down a federal court?” Barr said.

He said: “If someone went down the street to the Prettyman Court here, that beautiful courthouse we have right at the bottom of the hill and started breaking windows and firing industrial-grade fireworks in to start a fire, throw kerosene balloons in and start fires in the court, is that OK? Is that OK now? No, the U.S. Marshals have a duty to stop that and defend the courthouse, and that’s what we are doing in Portland. We are at the courthouse, defending the courthouse.”

“We are not out looking for trouble.”

At another point in the hearing, Barr lamented that only one political party seemed to be sticking up for federal property and condemning mobs.

“What makes me concerned for the country is this is the first time in my memory that the leaders of one of our two great political parties, the democratic party are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts,” Barr said. “Why can’t we just say, you know, violence against federal courts has to stop? Could we hear something like that?”

Barr also had an opportunity to explain his positions in the Michael Flynn and Roger Stone cases, and launched an impassioned defense against the accusations that he has treated the president’s friends with particular and improper favor and gone after his enemies.

“What enemies have I indicted?” Barr asked.

He then turned to the cases involving Trump’s associates.

“The cases that are cited, the Stone case and the Flynn case, are both cases where I determined that some intervention was necessary to rectify the rule of law, to make sure people are treated the same,” Barr said.

“Stone was prosecuted under me. And I said all along I thought that was a righteous prosecution, I thought he should go to jail, and I thought the judge’s sentence was correct,” he continued. “But the line prosecutors were trying to advocate for a sentence that was more than twice anyone in a similar position had ever served, and this was a 67-year-old man, first-time offender, no violence. And they were trying to put him in jail for seven to nine years. And I wasn’t going to advocate that, because that is not the rule of law.”

Barr said: “I agree the president’s friends don’t deserve special breaks but they also don’t deserve to be treated more harshly than other people and sometimes that’s a difficult decision to make, especially when you know you’re going to be castigated for it.”

AG BARR DECRIES ‘LAWLESS, EVIL ACTION’ AFTER SHOOTING ATTACK OF FEDERAL JUDGE’S SON, HUSBAND

Later in the hearing, Barr touched on the Flynn case, noting that the case against him warranted dismissal in light of exculpatory evidence surrounding his initial FBI interview, which had recently become public. This included notes that indicated that federal agents may have been trying to get Flynn to lie so that he could be prosecuted.

“The interview was untethered to any legitimate investigation,” Barr said.

Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., called into question Barr’s claim that there is no inherent racism in the American justice system, pointing to Barr’s own department as evidence to support his claim.

“The one thing that you have in common with your two predecessors, both Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions and [acting] Attorney General [Matt] Whitaker, is that when you all came here and brought your top staff, you brought no black people,” Richmond said. “That, sir, is systematic racism. That is exactly what John Lewis spent his life-fighting.”

Early in his opening statement, Barr paid his respects to Lewis, who was a champion of civil rights. Richmond did not appreciate the kind words.

“You really should keep the name of the Honorable John Lewis out of the Department of Justice’s mouth,” Richmond said.

Richmond also brought up an issue that Democrats have raised, regarding whether or not the president would leave office if he loses November’s election. Trump himself has refused to state whether he would accept the election results, claiming that the election would be rigged by a Democratic push for mail-in voting.

When asked if an election result could be contested, Barr pointed to 2000’s Gore v. Bush, in which the Supreme Court had to intervene before an outcome was finalized. When asked if the president could contest the election if the result is not close, Barr said, “Not that I’m aware of.”

Barr said that he has no reason to believe that the election will be rigged, although he did state that mail-in voting exposes the system to a high risk of fraud.

The hearing was also full of tension between Barr and Democratic lawmakers as they fought to speak over one another. The questioning from Reps. Lou Correa, D-Calif., and Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., became particularly heated as kept trying to respond to their comments.

“This is a hearing,” Barr said. “I thought I was the one who was supposed to be heard?”

Jordan came to Barr’s defense when he questioned Nadler on why he was permitting Democratic lawmakers to interrupt the attorney general and not let him respond to questions.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“For months you’ve tried to get the attorney to come,” Jordan told Nadler. “He’s here. Why don’t you let him speak? Why don’t you let him answer the questions?”

Jordan continued: “If you want the attorney general to come at least let him answer the accusations made against him…Time after time you refuse to let the attorney general answer the questions posed to him.”

Fox News’ Andrew O’Reilly contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-testifies-before-house-judiciary-committee-maintains-independence-from-trump

The post Barr spars with Dems on Trump ties, riots at fiery House hearing first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

-McConnell, in opening remarks, says, ‘finally, some fairness’

-House managers complain about proposed trial rules, claiming McConnell is orchestrating a cover-up

-On party-line votes, Senate rejects Schumer amendments to subpoena White House, State Department, OMB for witnesses and documents

This is how the day unfolded.

7:24 p.m. GOP-controlled Senate rejects Democrats’ effort to subpoena OMB records

McConnell calls for a vote to table, or set aside, Schumer’s amendment calling for the Senate to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget for documents related to the military aid to Ukraine.

The amendment is killed 53-47 along strict party lines — just as happened with the two previous Democratic amendments.

Schumer announces a fourth amendment — to subpoena testimony from acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

With it still unclear how many more amendments Democrats might offer — and how many more hours of debate that might mean — the Senate then breaks for dinner.

As GOP senators leave the chamber — many grabbing phones and furiously typing on their electronics — they’re huddling just off the floor to enjoy a dinner of — pizza.

7:10 p.m. A long day for senators, stuck in seats, listening to hours of arguments

The first long day of the president’s impeachment trial has taken its toll on senators, who have been forced to sit in silence, relying on water and snacks to sustain them through hours of debate over the resolution setting the parameters for the impeachment trial.

The first person caught dozing was Republican Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho.

At about 5:30 p.m., as Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., spoke in favor of an amendment to subpoena the State Department for records, Risch was slumped over with his head resting in his right hand, and appeared to be sleeping or close to it, though he stirred repeatedly to rub his eyes.

Risch perked up later as Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for President Trump, and Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, took to the floor following Demings.

“What time is it?” Risch could be heard asking when Schiff appeared to run over the time allotted for the managers. He then started tapping the face of his wristwatch, which echoed through the chamber.

Other senators relied on gum and mints to stay alert. GOP Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina was seen popping a mint into his mouth at about 6:10 p.m. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon was seen chewing on his pen.

The Senate is expected to break for dinner between 8 and 9 p.m. ET after a vote to table the Democrats’ third amendment, which seeks to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget for records.

— ABC’s Benjamin Siegel

7:04 p.m. Sekulow argues Ukraine aid ultimately delivered without investigation announcement

The president’s personal attorney and part of his defense team Jay Sekulow repeated arguments from Republicans that the Trump administration ultimately provided aid to Ukraine that was authorized by Congress and went further than aid provided by the Obama administration.

Sekulow said that the fact that the aid was ultimately provided without an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens or Burisma undercuts the Democrats’ argument that President Trump held back the money for his own political benefit.

6:39 p.m. House manager Jason Crow argues OMB documents would show President Trump used national defense funds for his political benefit

House manager Jason Crow begins his argument in favor of the amendment to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget by sharing some of his personal history as an Army Ranger serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Crow is in his first term in Congress and served in the 82nd Airborne Division before joining the 75th Ranger Regiment, with which he served two tours in Afghanistan as part of the Joint Special Operations Task Force.

He says the decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine was “personal” to him and that OMB played a key role in the decisions to hold back aid approved by Congress.

“These documents would provide insight into critical aspects of the military-aid hold. They would show the decision-making process and motivations behind President Trump’s freeze. They would reveal the concerns expressed by career OMB officials including lawyers that the hold was violating the law. They would expose the lengths to which OMB went to justify the president’s hold,” he says.

“They would reveal concerns about the impact of the freeze on Ukraine and U.S. national security. They would show senior officials repeatedly attempted to convince President Trump to release the hold. In short, they would show exactly how the president carried out the scheme to use our national defense funds to benefit his personal political campaign,” Crow says.

6:20 p.m. Senate rejects second Democratic amendment, for State Department documents, also along party lines

Schiff appeals directly to the senators sitting silently in the chamber in his argument that they should vote to subpoena the State Department for additional evidence in the impeachment trial.

“You’re going to have 16 hours to ask questions. Sixteen hours — that’s a long time to ask questions. Wouldn’t you like to be able to ask about the documents during those 16 hours?”

Schiff references the “three amigos,” three administration officials who took the lead in the administration’s policy in Ukraine.

Adam Schiff speaks on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, DC.ABC News

Although Ambassadors Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland both testified as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Schiff pointed out that the third “amigo” – former Energy Secretary Rick Perry – has thus far refused to cooperate with investigators or provide any documents.

“Wouldn’t you like to know? Don’t you think the American people have a right to know what the third Amigo knew about this scheme?” Schiff asks.

McConnell calls for a vote to table Schumer’s second amendment, calling for the Senate to subpoena the State Department for documents related to the administration’s involvement in Ukraine and the decision to withhold military aid. That amendment is tabled — or killed– along party lines, just his first one calling for White House witnesses was rejected.

Schumer then offers a third amendment to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget for documents.

Some color from our reporters inside the chamber watching from above in the press gallery:

During the defense’s statements, the most aggressive Republican note-takers were GOP Sens. Murkowski and Collins (two of the four Republicans we are watching closely). The two women wrote for multiple minutes as White House counsel Pat Cipollone spoke.

A few aides have been walking on and off the floor to deliver notes to members, who for the most part remain quiet and attentive.

Also coming on and off the floor – Senate pages who have been vigorously delivering water glasses to both the House legal team and the members over the last few minutes.

— ABC’s Allison Pecorin

6:05 p.m. Chief Justice John Roberts has to be back at his first job tomorrow morning

Even as it’s unclear how much longer the Senate will go tonight debating Democratic amendments, one of the few people in the chamber who will have to be back at work first thing tomorrow morning — running an entire branch of government — is the chief justice.

The U.S. Capitol building exterior is seen at sunset, Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, DC.Sarah Silbiger/Reuters

He’ll preside over oral arguments at the Supreme Court in a major case involving religion and school choice that public school unions say is “crucial” for their funding. That begins at 10 a.m.

The senators and other staff presumably won’t be back in business until midday when the trial’s opening arguments are expected to begin at 1 p.m. and Roberts will need to be back on the Senate dais as presiding officer.

— ABC’s Devin Dwyer

5:20 p.m. Democratic Rep. Val Demings argues Senate must subpoena State Department documents

House manager Val Demings is now making an argument in favor of an amendment to subpoena to State Department for documents related to Ukraine.

Demings, 62, made an impression in questioning witnesses when the testified before both the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

Val Demings speaks on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, DC.ABC News

Unlike the other House managers, Demings doesn’t have a background as a litigator but she did work in the criminal justice system as the first female police chief in the Orlando Police Department, where she served for 27 years.

A Florida State University and Webster University graduate, Demings is the only member of the managing team without a law degree and the only member with a law enforcement background.

– ABC’s Ben Siegel

Sen. Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters during a brief recess on the first full day of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 21, 2020.Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

4:40 p.m. Senate rejects Schumer amendment calling for a subpoena for White House witnesses and documents

On a party-line vote, 53-47, the Senate votes to put aside — or kill — Schumer’s amendment to subpoena witnesses and documents from the White House.

Schumer proposes a new amendment to subpoena documents from the State Department related to calls between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy.

The Senate Chamber as members vote on the amendment offered by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump, Jan. 21, 2020, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.ABC News

There will be another two hours of debate on that amendment. McConnell says he will move to table that amendment as well.

4:14 p.m. Trump’s lawyers argue all the Democrats’ subpoenas have been invalid

Patrick Philbin, one of the lawyers on President Trump’s defense team, pushes back on the Democrats’ argument that the White House refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

He says the White House did respond to subpoena requests with a letter laying out why it saw the subpoenas were invalid – primarily that the House had not voted to authorize an official impeachment inquiry.

“All of those subpoenas were invalid,” he says.

“And that was explained to the House, to manager Schiff and the other chairman of the committees at the time in that October 18th letter. Did the House take any steps to remedy that? Did they try to dispute that? Did they go to court? Did they do anything to resolve that problem? No.”

After Philbin finishes, Schiff speaks again.

“Let’s get this trial started, shall we?” Schiff says in response to the president’s lawyers’ claim that Democrats are pushing for more evidence because the House’s case isn’t strong enough.

“We are ready to present our case. We are ready to call our witnesses. The question is will you let us?” he asks.

As arguments conclude, McConnell makes a motion to put Schumer’s amendment aside.

3:42 p.m. Former GOP Sen. Jeff Flake watches from Senate Gallery

Former Sen. Jeff Flake is in the chamber. He is seated in the upper level that is reserved for staff and guests. He looked over to the press area where reporters are seated and smiled.

The former senator and fierce Trump critic announced in 2017 that he would not seek reelection.

Flake notably has said that if the Senate held a secret ballot to remove Trump from office, more than 30 Republicans would vote to oust him.

3:34 p.m. House manager Zoe Lofgren says documents Democrats want subpoenaed would reveal ‘the truth’

House manager Zoe Lofgren argues Schumer’s amendment to subpoena key evidence from the White House would circumvent President Trump’s efforts to block the House impeachment investigation by refusing to release documents or blocking officials from cooperating.

She says evidence released through Freedom of Information Act requests and messages from Ruddy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas made public after the House impeachment vote show that the White House documents could further implicate the president in wrongdoing concerning the withheld aid to Ukraine.

“The documents include records of the people who may have objected to this scheme, such as Ambassador (John) Bolton. This is an important impeachment case against the president. The most important documents are going to be at the White House. The documents Senator Schumer’s amendment targets would provide clarity and context about president Trump’s scheme,” Lofgren says.

“We don’t know with certainty what the documents will say. We simply want the truth … whatever that truth may be. So, so do the American people. They want to know the truth. And so should everybody in this chamber regardless of our party affiliation,” she adds.

Lofgren points out that multiple witnesses in the House investigation testified they took detailed, handwritten notes around relevant events like the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy.

She says documents like those notes would provide a first-hand look at how Trump’s behavior was perceived by those around him at the time.

3:26 p.m. Schiff argues the president’s lawyers didn’t even mention the rules resolution

After the break, Schiff pushes back on accusations from the president’s lawyers that the House impeachment proceedings were unfair and that Republicans and representatives of the president weren’t allowed to participate. He says it is “just plain wrong” to say Republicans weren’t allowed in the depositions with witnesses or that the president wasn’t allowed to send a representative to Judiciary Committee proceedings.

“I’m not going to suggest to you they are being deliberately misleading here, but it is just plain wrong. You have also heard my friends at the other table make attacks on me and chairman Nadler. You will hear more of that. I am not going to do them the dignity of responding to them, but I will say this. They make a very important point, although it’s not the point I think they’re trying to make,” Schiff said.

“When you hear them attack the House managers, what you are really hearing is “we don’t want to talk about the president’s guilt. We don’t want to talk about the McConnell resolution and how patently unfair it is.”

2:55 p.m. Inside the Senate chamber, senators taking notes, exchanging messages

As the Senate took a break, ABC’s Mariam Khan reports senators, for the most part, were sitting quietly at their desks while Cipollone, Sekulow, and Schiff took turns speaking.

Senators seem to be paying close attention, maintaining eye contact with the speakers, and taking notes.

As Schiff spoke about the charges against the president, Trump’s key allies – GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham, David Perdue, Jim Risch, James Inhofe, and several others, stared stoically ahead.

Moderate GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — who are seated next to each other — are taking copious amounts of notes, their faces expressionless.

While Schiff was speaking, Graham started to look a little bored, shifting in his seat constantly. While senators cannot speak to one another during the proceedings, he scribbled out a note on his legal notepad and shared it with his seatmate, Sen. John Barrasso.

Barrasso read the note, exchanged a knowing look with Graham and the two quietly chuckled.

When Schiff went on about the need for witnesses, Graham appeared to smirk.

When Schiff played a video of Trump saying he wanted to hear from witnesses – Minority Leader Schumer began to grin widely. He looked pleased.

Meanwhile, senators are still getting messages from the outside world. Aides are discreetly walking on to the floor to hand-deliver paper messages to senators. Senate pages are walking around filling up water glasses.

2:39 p.m. President Trump’s lawyers argue the Democrats failed to pursue their case in the courts

President Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow begins his argument by slamming the process in the House impeachment inquiry.

“And what we just heard from manager Schiff, courts have no role, privileges don’t apply, what happened in the past we should just ignore. In fact, manager Schiff just said try to summarize my colleagues’ defense of the president,” Sekulow says.

“He said not in those words of course, which is not the first time Mr. Schiff has put words into transcripts that did not exist. Mr. Schiff also talked about a trifecta,” Sekulow says.

“I’ll give you a trifecta. During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The president was denied the right to access evidence. And the president was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings. This is a trifecta that violates the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Schiff did say the courts really don’t have a role in this. Executive privilege, why would that matter? It matters because it is based on the Constitution of the United States,” Sekulow continues.

The president and his counsel could not participate in person during the depositions that House Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight committees held but once the hearings moved to the House Judiciary Committee, the White House and the president chose not to participate even though they were invited to present a defense.

Pat Cipollone also says that Schiff was keeping Republicans out of the impeachment depositions. That is not true. Republicans on the committees mentioned participated in the depositions.

Sekulow argues that the only reason we are here is because Democrats want the president removed from office.

“What are we dealing with here? Why are we here? Are we here because of a phone call? Or are we before a great body because, since the president was sworn into office, there was a desire to see him removed.”

He says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed her impatience and contempt for the proceedings and waiting for the courts to rule when she said: “we cannot be at the mercy of the courts.”

“That is why we have courts … to determine constitutional issues of this magnitude,” he said, although it should be noted that the administration has argued that the courts should not have a role here,” he says.

-ABC’s Katherine Faulders

ABC News Politics@ABCPolitics

2:13 p.m. GOP’s Collins pressed to have arguments take place over 3 — not 2 — days

ABC’s Trish Turner on Capitol Hill reports aides to moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins say she and others raised concerns about trying to fit the 24 hours of opening statements in two days under the proposed rules and the admission of the House transcript of the evidence into the Senate record.

Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible, the aides say. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement, they say.

Later, during a break, a Republican senator – who asked not to be quoted – said the discussion of the tweaks to McConnell resolution was the topic of discussion at the GOP lunch today.

Some of the key senators, like Collins, “were clearly concerned about the topics around which changes were made,” this senator said, reports ABC’s Trish Turner.

”It was clear there was quite a bit of concern,” so it was changed, the senator said.

Sen. Ron Johnson said, “There was pretty strong feeling which is why it got changed,” saying the concern extended even beyond moderate senators. Republicans wanted to take an argument away from Schumer, he said. “We are not trying to hide testimony in the wee hours of the morning.”

2:08 p.m. Trump tweets from Switzerland

President Trump appears to be monitoring the Senate trial from his trip to Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, reports ABC’s Elizabeth Thomas.

A few minutes after he left a dinner with Global Chief Executive Officers, the last scheduled event of the day in Davos, Trump tweeted, “READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” — one of his favorite defenses, as he has often said before, referring to his calls with Ukraine’s president — calls which he calls “perfect.”

1:34 p.m. Schiff says Trump is arguing there is nothing Congress can do about his conduct

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff makes his first remarks in Tuesday’s session, speaking on behalf of the House impeachment managers against McConnell’s resolution.

He says Trump is arguing that there is nothing Congress can do about the behavior in question in the trial and the trial won’t be fair if both sides are blocked from introducing new evidence.

“If a president can obstruct his own investigation, if he can effectively nullify a power, the Constitution gives solely to Congress and indeed the ultimate power, the ultimate power the Constitution gives to prevent presidential misconduct, then the president places himself beyond accountability, above the law,” Schiff says.

“It makes him a monarch, the very evil which against our Constitution and the balance of powers the Constitution was laid out to guard against,” he says.

ABC News Politics@ABCPolitics

2:13 p.m. GOP’s Collins pressed to have arguments take place over 3 — not 2 — days

ABC’s Trish Turner on Capitol Hill reports aides to moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins say she and others raised concerns about trying to fit the 24 hours of opening statements in two days under the proposed rules and the admission of the House transcript of the evidence into the Senate record.

Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible, the aides say. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement, they say.

Later, during a break, a Republican senator – who asked not to be quoted – said the discussion of the tweaks to McConnell resolution was the topic of discussion at the GOP lunch today.

Some of the key senators, like Collins, “were clearly concerned about the topics around which changes were made,” this senator said, reports ABC’s Trish Turner.

”It was clear there was quite a bit of concern,” so it was changed, the senator said.

Sen. Ron Johnson said, “There was pretty strong feeling which is why it got changed,” saying the concern extended even beyond moderate senators. Republicans wanted to take an argument away from Schumer, he said. “We are not trying to hide testimony in the wee hours of the morning.”

2:08 p.m. Trump tweets from Switzerland

President Trump appears to be monitoring the Senate trial from his trip to Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, reports ABC’s Elizabeth Thomas.

A few minutes after he left a dinner with Global Chief Executive Officers, the last scheduled event of the day in Davos, Trump tweeted, “READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” — one of his favorite defenses, as he has often said before, referring to his calls with Ukraine’s president — calls which he calls “perfect.”

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

The post Trump impeachment trial: Senate rejects Democrats’ effort to subpoena witnesses, documents first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., arrives at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, Jan. 10, 2020. Pelosi hasn’t relayed the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial three weeks since President Donald Trump was impeached on charges of abuse and obstruction. Last night, she led the Democrat-controlled House in passing a measure limiting Trump’s ability to take military action against Iran after he ordered the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Republican Conference chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., speaks with reporters as lawmakers leave the Capitol in Washington, Friday, Jan. 10, 2020. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday the House will take steps next week to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for President Donald Trump’s Senate trial. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Laura Albinson of Pasadena, Md., displays a message for members of the House as they leave the Capitol in Washington, Friday, Jan. 10, 2020. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday the House will take steps next week to sent articles of impeachment to the Senate for President Donald Trump’s Senate trial. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, does a tv news interview just outside the House chamber, Friday, Jan. 10, 2020, at the Capitol in Washington. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has not yet relayed the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial three weeks since President Donald Trump was impeached on charges of abuse and obstruction. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will take steps next week to transmit the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, ending a three-week standoff but confronting the Senate with only the third trial in U.S. history to remove a chief executive.

In a letter to her Democratic colleagues, Pelosi said Friday she was proud of their ″courage and patriotism” and warned that senators now have a choice as they consider the charges of abuse and obstruction against the president.

“In an impeachment trial, every Senator takes an oath to do ’impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws,‴ Pelosi wrote. “Every Senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the President or the Constitution.”

The trial could begin next week. The Constitution gives the House the sole power to impeach a president, but the Senate the ability to render a verdict when it convenes as the Court of Impeachment.

Pelosi was particularly upbeat Friday as she strode through the Capitol, despite the mounting pressure on her to quit delaying the trial. Her decision to end the showdown with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell does not fully bring closure to the question of whether the Senate will consider new witnesses, as some want, shifting pressure on senators to decide.

Trump swiftly signaled his intention of blocking any testimony from John Bolton, the brash former national security adviser who could be a wildcard witness in the trial. Bolton has said he would appear before the Senate if he received a subpoena.

At the same time, a key centrist GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, whose vote is among those most-watched, announced Friday she was in discussions with other Republicans on a strategy that would allow the Senate to hear new testimony.

While the rules of the Senate trial remain unsettled, the outcome is not. Trump is widely expected to be acquitted of the charges that he abused power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, then obstructed Congress in its investigation. No president has ever been removed by the Senate.

“Ridiculous,” Trump told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham about the speaker’s gambit. “Nancy Pelosi will go down as the least successful speaker of the House in the history of our nation,” he said.

Asked if he would invoke executive privilege to block Bolton’s testimony, Trump said, “Well I think you have to for the sake of the office.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working closely with the White House on strategy, said Friday afternoon that the Senate is “anxious to get started.”

Republicans have the leverage, with a slim 53-47 Senate majority, if McConnell can keep GOP senators on board with his strategy. So far, they are supportive of modeling the trial after the one used in the last presidential impeachment, of Bill Clinton, 20 years ago. It set out a path for starting the trial and voting on witnesses later.

Despite McConnell’s wishes for a speedy trial, some Republicans in his caucus have indicated that they are open to witnesses. It takes just 51 senators to set the rules, and Democrats have been trying to win over wavering GOP senators to vote with them on hearing new testimony.

“I am hopeful that we can reach an agreement on how to proceed with the trial that will allow the opportunity for witnesses for both the House managers and the President’s counsel if they choose to do so,” Collins said. “It is important that both sides be treated fairly.”

Since the House vote on Dec. 18 to impeach the president, the showdown between Pelosi and McConnell, the two power centers in Congress, has consumed Capitol Hill and scrambled the political dynamics.

The speaker declined to send the articles to the Senate until she knew there would be a fair trial with witness testimony. She also asked McConnell for details on the trial structure she could decide who to appoint as impeachment managers. McConnell rebuffed all over her demands.

On Friday, Pelosi ended the stalemate by saying she had asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate. She did not announce a date for the House vote.

McConnell indicated Friday the trial would start soon. “We’ll get about it as soon as we can,” he said.

Transmittal of the documents and naming of House impeachment managers are the next steps needed to start the Senate trial. Yet questions remain in the Senate on the scope, format, and duration.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is eager to test Senate Republicans, especially those like Collins who are up for re-election in 2020, with votes to compel testimony from Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and others who have so far resisted appearing before Congress.

“Senate Democrats are ready for the trial to begin and will do everything we can to see that the truth comes out,” Schumer said.

Bolton, who was present for several of the internal White House discussions about Ukraine policy that were at the heart of the Democrats’ impeachment case, is among the most compelling of four witnesses suggested by Schumer.

The former national security adviser clashed with the president’s Ukraine policy, saying he didn’t want to be part of any “drug deal” being cooked up. He called Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who others have testified was orchestrating an alternative foreign policy outside of official channels, a “grenade” that was going to go off.

Chuck Cooper, an attorney for Bolton, declined to comment.

The House impeached Trump in December on the charge that he abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine’s new leader to investigate Democrats, using as leverage $400 million in military assistance for the U.S. ally as it counters Russia at its border. Trump insists he did nothing wrong, but his defiance of the House Democrats’ investigation led to an additional charge of obstruction of Congress.

On a July telephone call with Ukraine’s new president, Trump asked his counterpart to open an investigation into Democrat Joe Biden, who is running for his party’s presidential nomination, and his son Hunter while holding up military aid for Ukraine. A Ukrainian gas company had hired Hunter Biden when his father was vice president and the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

It’s still unclear who Pelosi will appoint as impeachment managers to prosecute the case in the Senate.

Nadler, D-N.Y., and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., will most likely lead the team.

What was more certain is that the group will be more diverse than the 1999 team in Clinton’s trial, who were all male and white. Pelosi is expected to ensure the managers are diverse in gender and race, and also geographically.

__

Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman, Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Darlene Superville and Padmananda Rama contributed to this report.

Source: https://apnews.com/5bc4445d8fbfbe3a45fb012a3beaa829

The post Pelosi to send impeachment to Senate for historic trial first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post House impeaches Trump for abuse of power and obstruction in historic rebuke first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) was one of just two House Democrats who voted against opening the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. Now, Peterson has confirmed that he will also vote against impeaching the president.

Speaking at an event over the weekend in Minnesota’s 7th Congressional District, which he represents, Peterson confirmed that he plans to vote against impeachment “unless they come up with something between now and Wednesday,” according to the Globe.

Peterson told the Globe that Trump “has not committed a crime” and said his “biggest problem” with the impeachment proceedings is that his caucus pre-determined that they were committed to impeaching Trump.

“And now they’ve spent a year trying to figure out how they can make a case for it. That’s backward. I just don’t agree with this,” Peterson said. “This is dividing the country for no good reason because he’s not going to be thrown out of office. Why are we doing this?”

Instead of impeachment, Peterson said the issue of Trump’s presidency should be settled by voters at the ballot box.

“If people don’t like Trump, they can vote against him,” he said.

Peterson further predicted that four or five other Democrats will join him in voting against impeachment. But he did not name which colleagues those will be.

The full House is expected to vote on impeachment this week after the House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment last week, one for abuse of power and another for obstruction of Congress. The House is expected to vote down party lines with few defectors, as Peterson predicted.

The impeachment trial will take place in the Senate, where it is expected to die quickly.

New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew was the first House Democrat who committed to voting against impeachment; he was the second Democrat who voted against opening the impeachment inquiry. However, Van Drew is expected to formally join the Republican Party this week.

Source: https://www.theblaze.com/news/another-house-democrat-says-he-will-vote-against-impeachment

The post Another House Democrat says he will vote against impeachment, predicts others will join him first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Collins on Senate denying Dem witnesses: ‘Welcome to the club, Mr. Schumer’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Doug Collins: Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler are acting like ‘petulant children’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

House Judiciary Committee approves impeachment articles against President Trump along party lines.  Two articles of impeachment against President Trump move to the full House for a vote.

The House Judiciary Committee on Friday voted to adopt two articles of impeachment against President Trump – capping a contentious three-day session that Republicans panned as a “kangaroo court” and teeing up a historic floor vote right before the holiday break.

The committee adopted both articles, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, on a party-line vote of 23-17. A final roll call in the full House is expected next week, which could trigger a Senate trial in the new year just as presidential primaries are set to get underway.

REPUBLICANS ERUPT AS NADLER SUDDENLY POSTPONES IMPEACHMENT VOTE NEAR MIDNIGHT

“Today is a solemn and sad day,” Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., told reporters after the vote. “For the third time in a little over a century and a half, the House Judiciary Committee has voted articles of impeachment against the president — for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House will act expeditiously.”

After the vote, the White House released a scathing statement, dismissing the inquiry as a “charade.”

“This desperate charade of an impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee has reached its shameful end,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said. “The President looks forward to receiving in the Senate the fair treatment and due process which continues to be disgracefully denied to him by the House.”

The committee vote was preceded by fireworks on Thursday night, when Nadler infuriated Republicans by wrapping up the hearing just before midnight and postponing the votes until the morning — saying he wanted members on both sides of the aisle “to think about what has happened over these last two days, and to search their consciences before we cast their final votes.”

That led to Republicans decrying what they called a “bush-league stunt” by Nadler to make sure the vote would be carried on daytime television.

“Mr. Chairman, there was no consulting with the ranking member on your schedule for tomorrow — you just blew up schedules for everyone?” Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., said. “You chose not to consult the ranking member on a scheduling issue of this magnitude? This is the kangaroo court we’re talking about.”

DEMS PLOW AHEAD WITH IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES IN HEATED ALL-DAY SESSION

The post Judiciary Committee approves articles of impeachment against Trump, GOP slams ‘kangaroo court’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

So reads the Democrat’s charade of an impeachment “report,” suggesting President Trump’s attempts to expose corruption in Ukraine were somehow politically motivated. The report’s author, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., went on to describe the president as “unbound” and “unaccountable”—because Schiff is a model of even-keeled temperament. He and other Democrats formally adopted the report a party-line vote, leading up to today’s impeachment hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.

Don’t be fooled: Schiff’s impeachment charade is exactly that, and it’s incompatible with the long and esteemed history of the United States Congress.

DEROY MURDOCK: IMPEACHING TRUMP WILL HURT DEMOCRATS MORE THAN HIM

Anti-Trump Democrats have essentially hijacked one of the three branches of the federal government by consuming Congress with a bogus impeachment process, which has only deepened our divisions while grinding government to a halt.

This is unprecedented. I have served four U.S. presidents, including two tours at the highest rank of White House staff as Assistant to the President.

I have also advised six different presidential campaigns, so I’ve lived and breathed politics for decades.

As chairman of Great America PAC, I worked hard to help elect President Trump, so I understand just how determined the Left is to not only undermine his agenda but ultimately remove him from office.

I have never seen such naked, self-serving partisanship. Since Inauguration Day, impeachment has been the left’s primary agenda.

Mere weeks after his election, Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., pressured President Trump to divest business assets that could pose a conflict of interest, supporting legislation would make violations of federal conflict-of-interest rules “a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

Three years later, that same agenda has resulted in the impeachment “hearings” we see today. It’s a farce.

After the Mueller report predictably exonerated President Trump earlier this year, Schiff embraced a whistleblower whose claims would purportedly lay the foundation for impeachment. Within months, however, a supposed truth-teller was exposed as a registered Democrat-held over from the Obama White House. This was a Democrat who had previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden.

According to one National Security Council official, the whistleblower was “accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump.” That same whistleblower reportedly worked with a Democratic National Committee operative, Alexandra Chalupa, who conducted opposition research on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. He even invited her into the White House for meetings.

In the process, the whistleblower even sought out Schiff for “guidance.” That’s right: The whistleblower, a Democrat, worked with the ringleader of impeachment to remove a sitting president from office. And now we are to believe the impeachment process is “nonpartisan”?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Making matters worse, Schiff repeatedly lied about his contact with the whistleblower. In an MSNBC interview, Schiff infamously claimed, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” It’s a claim so egregious that even The Washington Post and PolitiFact—which are anything but pro-Trump—accused Schiff of lying to the American people.

The charade goes on. Schiff recently scrambled to stop the whistleblower from being named, while finding time to accuse President Trump of acting “for his own personal, political gain”—again, because Schiff is a model of nonpartisanship. Even as Republicans attempt to speak with the whistleblower, Democrats put up roadblocks at every turn.

The post Ed Rollins: Impeachment sham — I’ve served 4 presidents and never seen such naked, self-serving partisanship first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.