Early Tuesday morning in the Capitol, Mayorkas walked into the lion’s den, taking a meeting with House GOP members of the “border security caucus” – a group of members particularly fired up over the announcement last week that the White House would lift Trump-era covid restrictions at the border, known as Title 42.

Republicans said they gave him an earful.

“It was a rough crowd, and you got to give him a lot of credit for picking the roughest crowd, going in, and listening to them,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican who attended the private briefing, where Mayorkas appeared voluntarily. “Nothing was really resolved, other than he made a promise to give a number of follow-up pieces of information.”

Added Rep. Brian Babin of Texas, the co-chairman of the caucus: “We appreciated his courage to come in, knowing that we were opposed to him 100%. But we were not satisfied with the answers he gave us.”

When asked if impeachment proceedings could be launched against Mayorkas in a GOP majority, Babin replied, “Definitely on the table.”

As the thorny politics of immigration have caused a rift within the Democratic Party, with a number of the party’s most vulnerable members revolting against the Title 42 move, Republicans see the matter as a rallying cry that will be central to their push to take back the House and the Senate in the fall.

The Title 42 move has upended efforts to pass a $10 billion Covid-19 relief bill, forced the Biden administration to quietly attempt to calm nerves on Capitol Hill and could lead to a series of tough questions for Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra on Wednesday when he goes before the House Budget Committee. Republicans say they’re not done yet, planning theatrics this week to consume the House floor and try to force votes on the issue – all an attempt to put the squeeze on vulnerable Democrats.

While some leading Democrats say the policy must be lifted, they are uncertain about the political price they may pay for it.

“It’s the right thing to do, but I don’t know if it will be a political problem or not,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday.

The decision to end Title 42 – which allowed migrants to be turned away at the border instead of processed under normal immigration rules during the global pandemic – is already causing problems on the legislative front, potentially scuttling a push to pass $10 billion in long-sought aid to deal with the pandemic.

On Tuesday, Republicans blocked an effort to advance the Covid relief plan as they demanded votes on amendments – namely one to target the Title 42 policy. But unlike many vulnerable Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has backed the White House’s move on Title 42, saying the current policy “wreaked havoc on our asylum system.” And the New York Democrat is rejecting calls for a vote on an amendment over the issue, a fight that could stall the package for vaccines and therapeutics for weeks.

“The bottom line is this is a bipartisan agreement that does a whole lot of important good for the American people: vaccines, testing, therapeutics,” Schumer said. “It should not be held hostage for an extraneous issue.”

Democrats look to avoid tough vote
In a private lunch on Tuesday, one Senate Democrat told CNN that the consensus among Democrats was to try and avoid holding a vote on the measure at all. Such an amendment would divide Democrats – and could potentially pass the Senate – and threaten the White House’s immigration policies while embarrassing the President.

Democrats in competitive reelection battles are now racing to distance themselves from President Joe Biden’s decision-making and bracing for the possibility of a surge of migrants at the border, even as many acknowledge that the pandemic-era rule can’t remain in perpetuity as a way to control the surge at the Southern border.

Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Georgia Democrat who is close to the White House but who also faces voters this year, made clear his displeasure with the administration’s move.

“I think this is the wrong time,” Warnock told CNN. “And I haven’t seen a plan.”

Several other Democrats in tough reelection battles echoed that sentiment.

“There are options,” Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat up for reelection in the fall, said when asked if he’d back an amendment on the issue.

“It’s obvious that there’s not a plan in place,” Kelly said. “This is a national security issue for the country, it’s a public health issue as well – not only for people in communities on the southern border, but for migrants. We need an orderly process.”

The administration says it does have a plan to deal with the expected surge.

Chris Magnus, commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection, said once the policy ends May 23, they have taken a number of steps to prepare for an influx of migrants and beef up security at the border.

“We are doing everything we can to prepare for this increase, ensure we continue to process people humanely, and impose consequences on those who break the law,” Magnus said in a statement. “At the same time, we will continue to use all available resources to secure our borders. This includes the increased use of technology, on-ground monitoring, use of drones and additional support personnel to supplement (Border Patrol) agents and free them up from processing duties whenever possible.”

But both the House and Senate Democratic chairmen of the homeland security committees are not yet sold on the administration’s plan – even after getting briefed regularly by Mayorkas.

Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, but also is in charge of the Senate Democratic campaign committee, said Tuesday, “It’s important that the administration has a plan to deal with what will happen as a result of lifting” the policy even as he said he’s “confident” it ultimately will.

But asked if he supports lifting Title 42, Peters said: “I want to see the plan, but it’s still a work in progress.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat and the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, met Tuesday morning with Mayorkas to discuss the issue and warned that he still wanted to see a more robust plan for how the Homeland Security Department plans to combat a potential increase in border crossings this summer.

“Obviously, the administration has to come with policies that would convince the public that this issue will be managed. Not controlled, but managed,” Thompson said. “The policies have to be clear. … I am being told those policies are being worked on as we speak.”

Asked if he was convinced that the administration’s policies will be able to combat a surge, he said, “Well, I will wait until I see the policy.”

Conservative Democrats, too, are pushing back.

“Security of the border is everything,” said West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a leading moderate Democrat. “It’s everything. And we have to get our head straight about this and get secured borders.”

GOP plots midterm plans
House GOP leaders are eager to keep Title 42 in the spotlight, with a strategy that is largely centered around messaging.

The GOP leadership has encouraged Republicans to participate in a so-called conga line on Wednesday, according to GOP sources, in which members will line up on the House floor and repeatedly ask for unanimous consent to consider a bill from Republican Rep. Yvette Herrell of New Mexico that would keep the Trump-era policy in place.

And last week, sources said Republican leaders began officially whipping support for a “discharge petition” that would force a floor vote on that same bill if 218 lawmakers sign on to the effort. So far, 211 members have signed the petition: every single House Republican besides Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.

Conservative Rep. Chip Roy of Texas filed the petition last year, but has been steadily building support for it ever since; the effort picked up new steam in the wake of Biden’s Title 42 announcement.

“What are they afraid of? Just put it on the floor,” Roy said. “If you think it’s bad policy, then put it up.”

When asked if he would support the discharge petition, Rep. Dean Phillips, a Minnesota Democrat in a tough reelection race, said he would have to look at it. But Phillips also made clear he has concerns with Biden’s Title 42 decision, and said he has begun to express some of those worries to the White House.

“I’ve been to the southern border twice. It appalled me, as it should appall any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, and any American,” he said. “And I do concur that there should be a thoughtful, actionable plan in place before rescinding it. Plain and simple.”

“I would be shocked and dismayed if they don’t,” Phillips added. “Have I seen it? No.”

On Monday evening, the House Republican conference held a briefing with border patrol agents to hear how the end of Title 42 will impact their operations, then followed it up with a news conference in the Capitol afterward.

“You know, President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, said they would do something about this and they have not,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said. “They’ve only opened it up worse.”

Republicans have already taken dozens of trips to the southern border since last year, and there are more in the works in the near future: McCarthy said he will lead another border trip at the end of this month.

Republicans are confident that hammering Democrats over the border will not only energize their base, but also resonate with moderate and independent voters – especially since they have linked border security to the fentanyl crisis that has impacted communities all around the country.

“It’s far more than just aliens coming across, it’s far more than just the drugs coming across. This is a national security issue that’s gonna further get worse as time goes on this summer,” said Rep. John Katko of New York, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee.

One reason the GOP feels like it has the political upper hand: the National Republican Congressional Committee has shown members internal polling that shows the border is a salient issue in battleground districts, according to GOP sources.

Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the head of the House GOP’s campaign arm, told CNN: “Democrats will pay a political price for their incompetence.”

CNN’s Ted Barrett and Morgan Rimmer contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/05/politics/title-42-gop-election-strategy/index.html

The post Biden’s immigration move divides Democrats as GOP plots election-year strategy first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

President Trump on Wednesday tweeted that he has granted a ‘full pardon’ to his former national security adviser, retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn, ending a legal saga brought about by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon,” the president wrote. “Congratulations to @GenFlynn and his wonderful family, I know you will now have a truly fantastic Thanksgiving!”

The post Trump announces pardon of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Democrats Delete God first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Unlike now, the highly partisan members of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force (WSPF) were heavily involved in staffing the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) during its deliberations. Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski even bragged to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward in a December 5, 1974 interview that:

“Most important ‘focus’ in his [Jaworski’s] view was working out arrangement to get the material to House Judiciary…HJC was ‘very slow’ getting started, he sez, and would never have gotten off the ground without the info provided by the SPO [Special Prosecutor’s Office]. It was a ‘road map’ he stressed more than a few times. Sez HJC ‘had a very difficult time getting underway,’ that Doar admitted to him. Doar ‘an excellent man there. Still, he had nothing to catch hold of; he was engulfed by the Watergate Committee material’ but it was badly organized and not nearly definitive enough. ‘What we did — the first real step — was to cast the die.'”

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEGINS WITH BITTER DISPUTE OVER RULES

Regardless of whether it was lawful and appropriate for technical members of the executive branch to staff an impeachment effort by the legislative branch, WSPF prosecutors supplied the precise and detailed testimony and other evidence from grand jury deliberations that enabled the HJC to properly frame its charges.

If Pelosi’s legal strategy seems to be out of a sitcom that’s because it is being guided by politicians who are eager to play the role of prosecutor during a TV trial.

In contrast, when the Mueller investigation came up empty, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her crew rushed to find an alternative – anything to get rid of Trump.

Racing against a self-imposed political clock, they skipped the idea of a criminal investigation into Trump’s Ukraine call because legitimate inquiries take time. Instead, they opted for what seemed like an attractive shortcut: impeachment.

That choice resulted in a politician-led kangaroo court during the House hearings. The American public was treated to brief and inconsistent questioning by alternating committee members – switching back and forth at five-minute intervals like a slow-motion Wimbledon tennis match – with each member grandstanding for their moment in the spotlight. This sloppy process resulted in a predetermined partisan success but now Democrats find themselves in a Senate trial without persuasive evidence whatsoever.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

In Watergate, the Ervin Committee let counsel first question the witnesses, with members able to chime in afterward. The result was a far more cogent picture. Of course, chief counsel Samuel Dash later admitted that he had prepared and distributed suggested questions to committee members to avoid duplication or lapses in the preferred storyline.

The post Geoff Shepard: Pelosi, House Democrats’ legal strategy at Trump impeachment trial is straight out of a sitcom first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Trump on Impeachment Trial 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.

Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Jerrold Nadler, Maxine Waters, and Eliot Engel during a press conference announcing articles of impeachment

The Democratic party is dying from its hatred of President Trump. The impeachment fiasco is just the latest symptom. After weeks of testimony, Democrats have not been able to come up with any charges more concrete than ‘abuse of power’ and ‘obstruction of Congress.’ Abuse of power is certainly a serious thing — but only if it’s real. Partisans think that almost anything a president from the opposing party does amount to an abuse of power. For impeachment to amount to anything more than partisan harassment, an actual crime ought to be found somewhere along the line: an act of wrongdoing objectively contrary to the law. Otherwise, any procedural or policy disagreement — or any pretext whatsoever — can be construed by a party out to get an enemy president as an ‘abuse of power.’

Adam Schiff discovered that ‘bribery’ was a crime that polled well in focus groups. But Democrats fell so far short of the mark of proving that bribery took place in President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine that they dared not even make the accusation in their articles of impeachment. Instead, they used the abuse of power simply to refer to actions they didn’t like, and they whipped up a new non-crime, ‘obstruction of Congress’, in an act of desperation. But Trump’s refusal to let administration officials play along with the Democrats’ pantomime impeachment proceedings is simply a bold assertion of the Constitution’s separation of powers. Congress can demand testimony, but it needs the executive branch to enforce the demand. And the executive branch is constitutionally independent — it can exercise its own judgment about the legitimacy of the demand and whether it must be enforced. There is no crime, and while the majority in Congress may be piqued by executive defiance, pique makes a lousy basis for impeachment. If voters think that Congress is right to demand cooperation and the executive is wrong to refuse, then voters can take action by voting out the president or voting in a larger congressional majority. But Democrats don’t want Trump’s fate to be decided by voters in November 2020. They want it to be decided by Congress.

Now Democrats are going to regret getting their wish. Trump’s acquittal in a Senate trial is a virtual foregone conclusion, and there are several indications that the humiliating failure of impeachment will hurt Democrats in November 2020. Some moderate Democrats have been quietly pushing for a vote to censure the president rather than impeach him. They know that they risk alienating voters in battleground districts by voting for impeachment. But Nancy Pelosi’s leadership in the House is now more responsive to the activist wing of the Democratic party — the wing driven above all else by hatred for Donald Trump — than to the moderates who stand to pay the price for the activist left’s vendetta. Trump’s own poll numbers in key battleground states have risen as the impeachment process has dragged on without uncovering plain criminal wrongdoing. Instead of removing Trump from office or putting Senate Republicans from battleground states in a tough position in 2020, impeachment may wind up guaranteeing Trump’s re-election and endangering vulnerable House Democrats. The electorate in 2020, after all, will almost certainly be more Republican than the electorate in 2018 was — midterms are always better for the party in opposition to the White House, while presidential elections maximize turnout for everyone. That puts the congressional Democrats’ marginal victors from the midterms in serious jeopardy. Impeachment has only hurt them.

But the Democrats have a bigger problem. Their party has lost its identity, and only Trump-hatred keeps its factions — the McKinsey consultants and the Democratic Socialists of America — together. Republicans have been here before: in the late 1990s, the party was excessively defined by its opposition to President Bill Clinton, in place of any positive program or vision of its own. The result in 2000 was the nomination of a bland and apologetic Republican — George W. Bush — as party’s presidential contender. Republicans stood for nothing except not being Clinton, and Bush embodied that nothingness. He was a ‘compassionate conservative’ — implying that other conservatives were not compassionate — and he promised a bipartisan education-driven agenda. Right-leaning Republican voters, especially conservative Christians, stayed home in droves that November. As a result, he came within a Florida recount (or a single Supreme Court justice) of losing the election.

The GOP did not learn its lesson. In 2004, Bush seemed to be a victorious war president, and Karl Rove worked like the devil to get the missing ‘values voters’ from 2000 to come out and re-elect Dubya. But Bush’s re-election in an environment still in the shadow of 9/11 only disguised the continuing weakness of the Republican brand. The 2006 midterm elections, the 2008 presidential and congressional elections, and ultimately Donald Trump’s destruction of the old GOP and its champions in the 2016 primaries (and ever since) showed how weak and unappealing the GOP and its self-embarrassed conservatism had become. Only having another Democratic president to oppose — Barack Obama as the new Bill Clinton — gave the pre-Trump Republican party a jolt upright in the 2010 and 2014 midterms. But the 2012 presidential election showed that the party and its ideology were still basically a corpse.

Democrats will be just as dead if they continue to let Trump-haters define their party. Democrats are struggling to adjust to the 21st century, with superannuated 2020 front-runners such as Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders as a case in point. Sanders, nearly 80, is in fact the most forward-looking candidate: his socialism might be a relic of the 20th century, but he recognizes that this outmoded idea has a new chance today because what passes for capitalism is even more obviously past its expiration date. (Socialism’s decrepitude is something Americans haven’t had to think seriously about in a long time, while the senility of the quasi-capitalist, post-industrial economy is something they live with every day.) Joe Biden stakes his appeal on nostalgia for Barack Obama. Pete Buttigieg is a cipher. And Elizabeth Warren has managed the feat of failing to win over the Sanders vote even while seeming too far to the left economically to appeal to the center. But as philosophically fractured as the Democratic field may be, the activist base of the party is less concerned with choosing a clear direction than with hyperventilating about Trump.

Sanders is the most ideologically focused Democratic contender. But that focus and the devotion it inspires on the left are set to run headlong into the anti-Trump mania of the party’s other activists. There is a parallel here to Pat Buchanan’s position on the right in the 1990s. He pointed the GOP toward the nationalist future it would embrace under Trump, but in the Bill Clinton era his nationalist conservatism could never overcome those Republicans who preferred to squelch philosophical considerations and focus on partisan opposition to the Democratic president. Now Sanders and his supporters may find themselves in the paradoxical position of holding the Democratic Party’s future while being powerless to claim its nomination in the present. Anti-Trump Democrats will vote for Biden or Buttigieg (a young old man) just as fervently as anti-Clinton Republicans voted for Bob Dole in 1996. But just as that anti-Clinton vote wasn’t enough to elect Dole president, a merely anti-Trump vote will not do it for Biden or Buttigieg. And in Congress, the solidarity that Democrats derive from opposing Trump only masks the contradiction of an increasingly hard-left party led by establishment figures like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

Trump has already won the impeachment war, but it’s only the beginning of the defeats that are in store for Democrats if they continue to be a party defined by their rage against him.

Source: https://spectator.us/democrats-lost-impeachment-war-probably-2020/

The post How Democrats lost the Impeachment War — and probably 2020 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.

The post House Dems announce two articles of impeachment against Trump first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Lindsey Graham: Adam Schiff is doing a lot of damage to our country first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.