Choosing the Unpalatable Over The Disastrous: Shoot Article II and Call The Witnesses

Below is my column in the Washington Post on the best course for the House managers in securing witnesses. The column was posted before the Bolton leak, which may now secure the needed four votes of swing Republican senators. However, Article II is as dead as Dillinger. Indeed it was dead on arrival. The two days of White House argument wiped out what little support existed for the charge given the decision to rush this impeachment and then impeach a president for raising executive privileges and immunities. The strongest material of the White House was directed at this exceedingly weak and unwarranted article of impeachment. Democratic senators speak a great deal of the need for bipartisanship . . . for Republicans. It is time for those same senators to show that they are equally expected and capable of putting aside party for principle. It is time for Democratic senators to join in the call to reject Article II.

Here is the column:

Famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith once described politics as “the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” Those words could not more aptly describe the choice now facing the House managers who lost this case before it began. Not because of the Republican majority but because of its own historic blunder in rushing the impeachment forward on an incomplete record.  It now must make a choice between the disastrous in simply staying the course to certain acquittal or the unpalatable in admitting the blunder and offering a compromise.  

            Thus far, the suggestions of a compromise has centered on an unlikely horse trade of a witness like former National Security Adviser John Bolton for Hunter Biden.  However, such a compromise does not address the separate institutional concern of some senators, which likely includes the four swing senators. For them, the threshold issue is not the inclusion of witnesses in the Senate but their omission by the House. 

            This week, a key Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), indicated that she was not inclined to call witnesses that the House failed to pursue in its rushed vote. 

            The decision is now with the House managers. They can either just grab the face time on national television or they can move to deal with its blunder and try to resuscitate this case.  It might be able to do so but it will have to offer more than a witness swap.

            A better compromise might be found in the two articles themselves.  To put it simply, it may be time to dismiss Article 2. The obstruction of Congress article was dead on arrival but its dismissal could allow the Senate to go on the record in opposition to the House handling of this impeachment. It just might be enough to open a path for witnesses on Article 1 and abuse of power.

            The House destroyed any chance for an obstruction article when made an impeachment by Christmas its overriding priority despite warnings that it would effectively hand over an incomplete case to not just the other house but the opposing party.

The short period set by the house did not allow time for a challenge to the House demand and effectively made the seeking of judicial review a “high crime and misdemeanor.” When Congress demands documents or, presidents often have objections based on the inherent immunities or privileges of their office.  Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were able to not only seek judicial review but take their appeals all the way to the Supreme Court before facing impeachment.  Nixon soon resigned after losing that case.  

            There are valid presidential claims of privilege to be raised by President Trump in calling his former White House Counsel or National Security Adviser to discuss direct communications with him in the Oval Office. 

            If the House had simply gone to court to enforce a subpoena, it would have forced a review of such privilege questions. Even before the impeachment vote, Bolton indicated his interest in testifying but it would require a subpoena. The House however refused to issue such a subpoena or take other reasonable steps to secure evidence. Magnifying this mistake was the decision of the House to withdraw the subpoena issued for Charles Kupperman, a deputy to Bolton. Like Bolton, Kupperman indicated that he might testify but went to court for review of the subpoena.  Before the House could rule, the House mysteriously pulled the subpoena.  Judge Richard Leon seemed nonplussed in dismissing the case, stating dryly “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness.   

            It is time of the Democrats to acknowledge the blunder in the rushed vote. Call it a constitutional penalty. In hockey, you lose a player in a powerplay.  In football, you lose downs or yards or possession.  

            The Senate could similarly cry foul and dismiss Article 2 while moving forward on Article 1 with limited witnesses. While there are valid arguments for leaving the House with the incomplete record that it handed over to the Senate, any House failure does not relieve the Senate of its own obligations.  The Senate could allow a limited number of witnesses while stipulating a fixed schedule for testimony, including any litigation over privilege arguments that should have been addressed in the House investigation. 

            The House managers must now decide if they are trying to score political points or win a case. If it is the latter, they need to honestly and decisively deal with their own failure. Neither side will be delighted with such a compromise, but it would allow the Senate to protect its institutional interests while allowing the House to prove the primary allegations in the case.  

            In other words, it may be time to pick the unpalatable over the disastrous for both Houses. It is time to shoot Article 2 and allow witnesses.

Jonathan Turley is the chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in an impeachment trial before the Senate in defense of Judge Thomas Porteous. He also testified with other constitutional experts in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.  He also serves as legal analyst for both CBS and BBC.

117 thoughts on “Choosing the Unpalatable Over The Disastrous: Shoot Article II and Call The Witnesses”

  1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-one weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David, you cannot even figure out whether your new pet name for me should be capitalized or not. BTW, I think I told you a long time ago I am not citing anything for you until you start catching up for me. Does Weart use citations?

  2. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-one weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I have worked with The Foundation and been to the school a couple of times. I keep up when I can.

  3. The ‘timely’ leak of the Bolton book shows clearly that this is nothing more than a coup attempt. If I had my way, we round everyone involved int the coup, give em fair trials and then hang every last one of them.
    The Democrats and Deep State do not realize that if they remove Trump they WILL cause a Civil War…and for what? I dont care anymore. The divide in this country is bordering on dangerous now. The country is a powderkeg because the Democrat voters refused to admit they lost an election and the corrupt Democrat politicians are terrified of their crimes being exposed.

    Lets talk about Vindman and his brothers job.
    Lets talk about the FISC corrupt appointment of Hillarys Deep State advisor to oversee the abuse of FISA process.
    The Deep State needs to be taken down. Maybe a Civil War is whats needed after all, who knows.

    1. oh and if anyone doubts a Civil war will occur, then consider this as fact, removing Trump will forever destroy MILLIONS of voters confidence in our govt , ever again, It will begin the slow agonizing death of the country. Democrats may think the idea of millions of voters giving up as awesome and it may be for them for a few years, until the system collapses.
      I just find it mind blowing that the Left who has long warned of Big Brother and HATED the CIA, now openly embrace both because they are trying to take down Trump because he hurts their feelings.

      1. trump promised to drain the swamp and he hasn’t

        the FBI, CIA, NSA, Fusion Centers… — turn the whole flippi’ lot upside down

        clean house

        i lean left, but we need oversight and accountability, including prison time, if necessary

    2. I don’t understand why the GOP are being such wimp dogs here. Why don’t they fight back? Investigate Joe Biden right f*ing now. Prosecute Bolton, his lawyer, his publisher, the NYT, his editor, and anyone who even lives on his block, right now. Time to pull out the hardware boys. You sad wimp dogs are going to lose this if you don’t man up.

      1. Bob Lawblaw – I agree with going after everyone but those living on his block. We aren’t Chinese, for goodness sake. 😉

  4. Schumer just shot Biden’s future bid for Presidency to Mars, giving Bernie Sanders an open path to the DNC Nomination.

    “Late Tuesday night, a Senate leadership source told Fox News that Republicans were specifically assessing the viability of two alternative options.

    One plan is to amend any resolution calling for a particular witness to also include a package of witnesses that assuredly wouldn’t win enough support in the Senate. For example, if the Democrats seek to call former National Security Advisor John Bolton, Republicans might subpoena Hunter Biden over his lucrative board position in Ukraine, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., over his inconsistent statements concerning his panel’s contacts with the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment probe.

    “After listening to the Dems’ 20+ hours of argument and the rebuttal arguments from @realDonaldTrump, I’ve got lots of questions for the Dems,” tweeted Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley on Tuesday. “Like this one: Why did Schiff lie about his contact with the ‘whistleblower’? More to come!”

    The “package deal” proposal could afford moderate Republicans the political cover of supporting more witnesses in theory, while ultimately rejecting a witness package they deem flawed. Even if a witness package passed, the resolution could be written such that the witness phase of the trial ends immediately if a key witness, such as Hunter Biden, defies his subpoena.”

    Fox News

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-one weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – are you mixing up WordPress articles again?

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-one weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – why don’t you ask JT directly if your word is banned?

  5. Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.):

    “My view is this — if the Senate decides to call witnesses later this week . . . we need to hear from Hunter Biden, he is right at the center of this,” Hawley said. “What was he doing in Ukraine? What was he doing with Burisma?”

    Hawley also wrote on Twitter, “if the Senate is going to call witnesses, then I will ask to hear from Adam Schiff, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden & the whistleblower, at a minimum.”

  6. Jonathan Turley, that’s not the way I read the plain words of the constitution. There is nothing about so-called executive privilege or court review.

    1. “…sole Power to try…” subordinates every other entity, regulation and procedure.

      No person, officer, organization or document will affect, in any way or manner, the decisions of the Senate with reference to a trial.

      No person, officer, organization or document has similar or equivalent Power to try or prevail over the conduct of the Senate trial.

      The Senate will decide on executive privilege, court review and every other aspect of the process and conduct of an impeachment trial.

      These are some “plain words of the Constitution.”

      Do you need an interpreter?

      Article 1, Section 3

      The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

  7. Were any of those 10 “potential cases of obstruction” included in the Articles of Impeachment?

    1. AWFUL NEWS DAVID but thanks anyhow
      what the hell another incompetent board versus board debacle

    2. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-one weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – The school has been in academic trouble for some time. I was surprised it kept its accreditation in 2017. They were turning out fewer and fewer students.

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-one weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – maybe it has a secret meaning unknown to either you or me. Ask JT or Darren. Don’t ask us. We can only see you are up late and losing your grip on reality.

  8. “Fox News’ Laura Ingraham shared new details Thursday night regarding a Ukrainian political officer who allegedly worked with a Democratic National Committee operative to hurt the Trump campaign.

    She identified the Ukrainian political officer as Andriy Telizhenko, a Ukrainian Embassy official who attended a 2016 White House meeting with former President Barack Obama.

    Ingraham’s report on “The Ingraham Angle” followed up her review the previous evening of the impeachment whistleblower’s ties to the Bidens and what the person knew about Hunter Biden’s dealings with Ukrainian gas company Burisma.”

  9. Democrats need a total of 67 votes to impeach and that’s not going to happen. So we’ll likely see witnesses, which will drag this forgone conclusion out a few more months. Plenty of time for voters to get thoroughly disgusted with the entire process and of course waiting in the wings is the Durham-Barr investigations. Which brings me to this great article and one no progressive can deny is spot on:

    As president-elect, Mr. Trump began to experience something else that the progressives had created, namely the hidden hand of the “disinterested” expert. His presidency has now revealed that hand, a hand that will no doubt be further revealed by the Barr-Durham investigation. The ultimate irony is this: In a very real sense, progressivism gave the country both President Trump and a great number of his enemies.

    Some of those enemies were on display in the recent impeachment hearings. So was their lack of disinterestedness. Bureaucrats as witnesses, they made clear their disagreement with administration policy, not to mention their willingness to take those disagreements to the level of seeking the impeachment of the president.

    In sum, the 2016 election and its result laid bare the inherent contradiction within progressivism. The 2020 election and its result might become an occasion to begin to resolve it. Will we tilt toward and defer to the people or to the experts? Will we continue to creep, if not leap, toward socialism? Or will we at least—and at last—begin to inch our way back to limited government and divided powers? Let’s call it creeping federalism.

    1. Olly,

      I was listening to a semi-retired head Intel guy today, I think he’s correct to call on Trump to Fire Barr & Fire 80% of the NSC, State Dept, WH staff, DOJ/FBI, Etc!

      We don’t need 2 million Fed Govt employees, 10-20% tof that number max.

      Trump can always hire people back if they can show a need.

      I say Durham & Barr? What the hell have they done? Nothing I see. Screw up the Jeffery Epstein murder…. All the damned major American Hating Crooks are still running free as Ray & they still have their security clearance.

      Tell them they got 2 weeks to preform or get the Phk out.

      1. Sorry, I said that in the wrong way.

        “Tell them they got 2 weeks to preform or get the Phk out.”

        We should say: “Thank you, but your services here are no longer required”

        1. Oky the problem is that actually there is no way to replace all those workers if they were cashiered, and, there is a lot which the bloated bureaucracy does which is actually necessary. Systems cant be easily redesigned.

          Like we need a CIA for sure, same FBI, DoD, we just dont need them reversing elections with their schemes.

          Government is like a big mafia. It has some rules, and it creates some order. Chaos might be worse. Probably. But government can be really bad too. And it is more complex, there are a lot of factions, operations, and competing interests. Not all actors are rogues but almost none are saints.

          1. See Reuel Marc Garecht on the CIA’s systemic problems. Most of our intelligence manpower is located in the military or in associated agencies. The CIA’s specialty is supposed to be human intelligence. See Reuel Marc Garecht on the CIA’s systemic problems, and how they spin their wheels but don’t produce much actual human intelligence. Blow it up.

              1. Like those in this video, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11 was executed perfectly and without glitch or complication.

            1. it’s supposed to be strategic foreign intelligence. military intelligence is a bigger job that is more detail oriented. strategic intelligence aimed at foreign civilian leadership is supposed to produce high value long term planning useful information. supposed to. I am not sure how it could be reformed but there is a need for the mission to be fulfilled.

              here is their own schtick:

              CIA’s information, insights, and actions consistently provide tactical and strategic advantage for the United States.

              Preempt threats and further US national security objectives by collecting intelligence that matters, producing objective all-source analysis, conducting effective covert action as directed by the President, and safeguarding the secrets that help keep our Nation safe.”

              Not sure where “Scheming” fits into all that.

              1. Check Banned.Video & maybe they’ll have time to cut Dr Pie’s interview out & you can listen to it.

          2. Mr K,

            I’m just parroting Dr Pie, former dep head of the state dept, ret., but still in US intel, & more then thousands of years of a tired & true management strategy of large groups of people.

            Trump should have fired or moved far away from DC a 1/3rd of those people.

            Found out who screamed the loudest, who was needed, fixed that & did the same with the next 1/3rd after the 1st 1/3rd.

            IE: get it the pain of lay/firings over as fast as one can, then tell the rest when it’s over.

            BTW: Dr Pie managed the state dept personal years back when it was far smaller & claims there wasn’t near the bloat that’s there now.

  10. I would hope by now that no one is surprised that “there’s been a bombshell that changes everything!” during this “trial”.

    That’s the modus operandi. We need a counter on how many times it’s been used.

  11. There needs to be additional polling done to find out what percentage of those who want witnesses will actually watch them.

  12. Interesting developments! Fun fun.

    Republicans cave . What a shocker. Republicans always cave. Biden is toast


    McConnell Says GOP Doesn’t Have Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses
    Senate majority leader makes remarks in private Republican meeting

    WASHINGTON—Republican leaders said they don’t currently have enough votes to block witnesses in President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, after his legal team concluded its efforts to counter Democrats’ charges that the president abused power and obstructed Congress.

    On the third and final day of presentations by the Trump legal team, lawyers tried to cast doubts on the importance and credibility of allegations by former national security adviser John Bolton about the president’s motives for freezing aid to Ukraine.

    But at a meeting of all Republican senators late Tuesday, GOP leaders told their conference that they don’t currently have the votes to prevent witnesses from being called, people familiar with the matter said. Republicans had hoped to wrap up the trial with an acquittal of the president by this week, but Democrats have said he should appear under oath to offer a firsthand account of the president’s motivations for freezing aid to Ukraine—a matter at the heart of the impeachment case.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said the vote total wasn’t where it needed to be on blocking witnesses or documents, these people said. He had a card with “yes,” “no,” and “maybes” marked on it, apparently a whip count, but he didn’t show it to senators.

    Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who face competitive races in the fall, warned colleagues in the meeting against backing more witnesses, people familiar with the matter said. The senators said a drawn-out trial could lead to more Democratic attacks and hurt their re-election chances, the people said. None of the three senators’ offices immediately responded to requests for comment.

    During Tuesday’s proceedings, the president’s lawyers argued that House managers hadn’t established their case that Mr. Trump abused power and obstructed Congress and said the accusations fell short of the threshold needed to remove a president from office, particularly in an election year.

    “The bar for impeachment cannot be set this low,” said Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s personal attorneys, of the Democrats’ impeachment case. Deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin said the abuse-of-power article was “infinitely malleable” and allowed for too much subjectivity. “How are we supposed to get the proof of what’s in the president’s head?” he asked.

    White House counsel Pat Cipollone, in closing, reminded senators that the presidential election was nine months away and said the choice should be left to voters. “Why tear up their ballots?” he asked.

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), following the conclusion of the session, dismissed the Trump legal team’s arguments. “Their whole argument is diversion,” he said.

    “If you don’t believe the newspaper report, call the witnesses,” he said of the Bolton account, which was first reported Sunday evening in the New York Times. He reminded senators that the witnesses Democrats have wanted to call but that have been blocked by the White House—which include Mr. Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney —are Republicans appointed by the president.

    Democrats, who control 47 seats, need four Republicans to join them to approve motions for new testimony or documents, which need a simple majority to pass. Starting Wednesday, the Senate will have two days to ask each side questions, followed by a vote later this week on new evidence.

    In Tuesday’s closing, the defense team was seeking to persuade senators not to support hearing testimony from further witnesses, among them Mr. Bolton. Mr. Bolton wrote in a draft of his forthcoming book that the president told him he wanted to keep aid to Ukraine frozen until Kyiv had aided investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Mr. Bolton’s lawyer confirmed.

    The president has denied Mr. Bolton’s description of the conversation. He has repeatedly said there was no link between freezing the aid to Ukraine and his push for investigations.

    In a marked shift from Monday, when the defense team made scant mention of Mr. Bolton’s allegations, the president’s lawyers on Tuesday argued that too little is known about the claims for them to factor into the Senate trial.

    Mr. Sekulow called the allegations “inadmissible” and pointed to the president’s denials, while accusing the former adviser of seeking to boost his book sales. Impeachment, he added, “is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts. That is politics, unfortunately.”

    The House last fall had sought Mr. Bolton’s testimony but moved forward with articles of impeachment when he declined to appear without a subpoena. The House declined to subpoena him in an effort to move quickly and not get bogged down in court fights.

    The reports of Mr. Bolton’s account unsettled Republican senators and bolstered the odds of a successful vote to hear further witness testimony. Several on-the-fence Republican senators said Mr. Bolton’s claims strengthened the case for further witness testimony, while the number of senators the White House believes may vote for more testimony ticked up.

    Lawmakers expressed interest in learning more about Mr. Bolton’s claims. One proposal by Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.) to make the Bolton manuscript available to the Senate in a classified setting for review drew the support of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a top ally of the president’s.

    Mr. Schumer rejected the idea of reading the manuscript behind closed doors. “What an absurd proposal,” he said. “It is a book. There is no need for it to be read in the SCIF unless you want to hide something,” referring to a secure facility. The book is set to be published in March.

    While no administration officials during the fall’s House hearings testified that they were told directly by Mr. Trump that he was holding up the aid to pressure Kyiv, four current and former officials said they understood that to be the case.

    Republicans have said this week that if the Senate votes for more testimony, they want to call witnesses including Mr. Biden and his son, Hunter.

    Sens. Mitt Romney (R., Utah) and Susan Collins (R., Maine) indicated on Monday that they were likely to favor witnesses. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) and Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) remained open to the idea.

    “I think that John Bolton probably has something to offer us,” Ms. Murkowski said Tuesday.

    The White House has grown concerned in recent days that two other senators might vote in favor of more testimony: Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio, people familiar with the discussions said. The defense team has been preparing for the possibility that the Senate will vote in favor of calling more witnesses and discussing how it would go to court to fight a subpoena for Mr. Bolton’s testimony. Mr. Bolton has said he would testify during a Senate trial if subpoenaed.

    Mr. Toomey suggested at a closed-door Senate lunch on Monday an arrangement in which the Senate subpoena Mr. Bolton as well as a witness sought by the White House, an approach Mr. Romney said he found fair.

    “I think if you hear from one side, you probably ought to have a chance to hear from witnesses from the other side,” said Mr. Romney.

    Republicans senators said that during the coming days of questioning they planned to ask about the elder Mr. Biden as vice president withholding loan guarantees from the Ukrainian government when the nation was slow to fire a prosecutor general whom Western diplomats criticized for not cracking down on corruption.

    They also planned to ask about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a Ukrainian gas company while his father was vice president. Mr. Trump and his allies have argued it was corrupt for Mr. Biden to call for the ouster of the Ukrainian prosecutor because he had once investigated the gas company, Burisma Holdings, that had ties to his son. The Bidens deny wrongdoing. Hunter Biden has said that serving on the company’s board showed poor judgment given his father’s anticorruption efforts.

    Republicans also plan to use their questions to attack the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), over his office’s dealings with the whistleblower whose account of the Ukraine pressure campaign spurred the impeachment inquiry.

    Democratic senators said they would like to ask questions that could allow the Democratic House managers to rebut comments from the Trump defense team.

    Following the period of questioning, the Senate will hold as much as four hours of debate on whether to subpoena witnesses or documents. If that hurdle is cleared, the Senate would then proceed to vote on whether to hear from Mr. Bolton, subpoena the notes he took during his tenure as national security adviser and gather other information or hear from other witnesses.

    1. Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.)

      “My view is this — if the Senate decides to call witnesses later this week . . . we need to hear from Hunter Biden, he is right at the center of this,” Hawley said. “What was he doing in Ukraine? What was he doing with Burisma?”

      Hawley also wrote on Twitter, “if the Senate is going to call witnesses, then I will ask to hear from Adam Schiff, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden & the whistleblower, at a minimum.”


      1. Boom! Yes.
        I think the Senate can accommodate both sides if they decide to call witnesses, and set an Easter (April?) deadline for completing the trial.

    1. It’s true that McConnell is not certain that there are 50 votes to conclude the trial without additional witness testimony ( there were 15 or so witnesses called by the pro-impeachment forces in the House who testified).
      It’s also true that there’s not the certainty of 51 votes in the other direction.
      It just means that there are possibly 4 GOP Senators who still might vote either way.
      Now Nadler is calling for Gen. Kelly to testify, too. Technically Friday is when they’ll decide on this, or at least debate it .
      But it may start tomorrow by getting included in the questioning. If the decision is made to open that door and bring in witnesses, I don’t think the demand for witnesses will stop at one or two.
      In addition to both of the Bidens and the whistleblower, the wish list of witnesses might include recalling some of the 15+ who gave testimony in the House.

      1. and calling Adam Schiff as a witness as well

        The Dems will kill it and thus face public ridicule on top of their ever increasing national ridicule

        They started this and it will be the end of Biden

  13. I watch this circus going on in Washington and I read these essays on this blog. This is happening because Trump won the election and the establishments candidate lost. That’s what this is all about. Trump won and inside the beltway they’re going crazy.

    1. Spot on. But it does remind one that Trump was not supported by either the DNC or the RNC. — the only candidate I know of who has become President without the support of either.

      So while everyone is highly skeptical that Trump will be removed in this manner, I’m not sure it’s impossible.

  14. I think lawyers in general tilt towards believing there is at least some legitimacy in any legal or quasi legal proceeding. And this causes them to make mistaken analysis in situations like this.

    The blunder here was made well before any formal impeachment hearings. The impeachment cry got out of hand well before this. It was out of hand well before the Russia hoax ended, or for that matter started.

    It didn’t become a matter of if Trump was going to be impeached but when. If it hadn’t been this phone call, it would have been something else. The “when” came to involve a political time table to satisfy a chunk of the party and a chunk of voters who wanted impeachment reasonably ahead of the 2020 elections. So the blunder Turley talks about didn’t happen. There was no blunder by anybody last year. The horse got out of the barn well before that.



    Voters are far ahead of Republican senators. In the latest Quinnipiac poll, registered voters want witnesses by a margin of 75 to 20 percent. That includes “49 percent of Republicans, 95 percent of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents.” In a party known for its cultish obedience to the White House line, Trump cannot even peddle his “no witnesses” snake oil.

    Trump has also lost a majority of voters on the merits. “More than half of voters, 53-40 percent, say President Trump is not telling the truth about his actions involving Ukraine. … More than half of voters, 54 percent, believe President Trump abused his power regarding his actions involving Ukraine, while 42 percent say he did not. A similar 52 percent think that President Trump obstructed Congress regarding its investigation of his actions involving Ukraine, while 42 percent think he did not.” They don’t buy that there was a legitimate reason to suspend aid (52 percent “think the Trump administration’s withholding of U.S. aid to Ukraine was not justified, while 34 percent say it was justified”).

    Edited from: “Republicans Are Trapped, Thanks To Nancy Pelosi”

    This Evening’s Washington Post

    1. See how stupid either all the extra Dems/Rinos they polled or the poll it appears to the rest of us???

      The time for witnesses was in the House Not the Senate!

      But what hell, Trump, go ahead & call all those child rapist/murdering Pedos/Corrupt aholes as witnesses. LOL;)

      Can we Talk? LOL Were all ears.

    2. Quinnipiac poll, registered voters want witnesses by a margin of 75 to 20 percent.
      If you get the witnesses you want, they will exonerate trump…

      You have to be pretty damn dumb to not see that trump would have never started this ridiculous ker-fuffle without the iron clad proof that he was innocent as his Ace in the hole.

      1. i also found this. maybe she’s insane! apparently she had been institutionalized.
        be careful believing people

        i also observe her lawsuit is pro se…. apparently could not get a lawyer to back the suit, not a very impressive start

        heard her in an interview. doesnt seem credible. some of the claims are preposterous

        sad, she’s a good looking lady, judging from the pictures with paul jr

Comments are closed.