The House Democrats are only on day 2 of presenting their case to the Senate, so we haven't seen much of the president's dream team in action, yet.  They will start presenting their defence of the President on Saturday, and we already have some ideas of the strategy they will be pursuing in bringing the impeachment trial to an acquittal.

Yesterday, in Part 1, we covered the first half of President Trump's legal defense team. Now, for Part II.

Alan Dershowitz Constitutional Law expert and Harvard professor

Alan Dershowitz is not a conservative. He voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and in the summer of 2019 he was ready to "enthusiastically" support Joe Biden. During an interview on "The Dan Abrams Show," Dershowitz said, "I’m a strong supporter of Joe Biden. I like Joe Biden. I’ve liked him for a long time and I could enthusiastically support Joe Biden.”

Dershowitz has been a vocal voice defending the president since the Mueller investigation, even publishing a book in 2018 titled, "The Case Against Impeaching Trump." He is often seen on Fox News shows defending the president from his Democrat accusers. He has plenty of TV experience which is important in what is definitely a TV event.

Dershowitz is a controversial choice for the Dream Team because of his past clients and his own legal troubles. He has defended men like OJ Simpson,  Jeffrey Epstein, and Harvey Weinstein.  He is currently defending himself against accusations of sexual assault by a Jeffrey Epstein victim.

Robert Ray, Former Independent Counsel

Robert Ray succeeded Kenneth Starr on the Clinton investigation in the special counsel's office and issued the final reports at the end of the investigation. He is a frequent contributor on Fox News, maintaining that the impeachment is unconstitutional.

Pam Bondi

Pam Bondi served as Florida's Attorney General for eight years. She supported the president's 2016 campaign and now works for the White House.

Jane Raskin

Jane Raskin, of Raskin and Raskin, joined President Trump's legal team in 2018. She is known as a tough litigator.

Mike Purpura

Mike Purpura joined the White House legal staff in 2019. He also worked in George W. Bush's administration. According to Politico, "As associate counsel in the Bush White House, he worked on the administration’s response to congressional investigations."

He argues strongly for executive privilege. "Executive privilege is not a partisan issue. It’s important to protect the principle of allowing the president to receive candid, full, frank advice from his top advisers without fear that those deliberations and communications will become public.”

President Trump's legal team jumped into the fray in the Senate on Tuesday, and their strategy to defend the president is taking shape on national television for all to see. Most obviously, they are not allowing the House Managers to get away with calling the president or them liars.

Who are the members of the team?

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone graduated from the University of Chicago Law School. Cipollone worked for then-Attorney General Barr in 1992-93. He replaced Don McGahn in the Trump administration in 2018.

He is considered the chief strategist in handling the July 25th, 2019 call to Ukraine's President Zelenskiy, suggesting that the president release the transcript of the call. He wrote a combative letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler about the president's participation in a hearing on December 4th, 2019:

Your letter asked that the President notify the House Committee on the Judiciary ("Judiciary Committee" or
"Committee") by December 1, 2019, whether the Administration intends to participate in a hearing scheduled for December 4, 2019. You scheduled this initial hearing-no doubt purposely-during the time that you know the President will be out of the country attending the NATO Leaders Meeting in London. 

Cipollone displayed the same combativeness in the Senate when responding to Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and other Democrat House Managers during the debate to establish the rules that will govern the impeachment trial.

Cipollone's combativeness should be an asset in this impeachment battle as the Democrats like Schiff, Nadler, and Senator Chuck Schumer are relentless in their attacks against the president, the Senate, and the Constitution.

Nadler accused Cipollone of lying, Cipollone responds and then Chief Justice Roberts admonished them.

Deputy Counsel to the president, Patrick Philbin

Patrick Philbin joined the Trump administration in 2019 and assists Cipollone in the legal office of the White House. He also served in the Bush II administration. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Philbin attended Yale and earned his law degree at Harvard.

He spoke during the rulemaking debates, and excoriated the House Democrats for not allowing the president to have lawyers present during the impeachment inquiry in the House. He explains why the case should be rejected just because of that.

Watch:

Jay Sekulow, President Trump's personal lawyer

Sekulow has been assisting President Trump since the Mueller investigation. He has also been assisting the president in the matter of his financial records, a case that will go to the Supreme court in March.

Sekulow has extensive experience arguing before the Supreme Court, but his primary expertise has been in the area of religious liberty and the first amendment.

Sekulow addresses the issue of the withholding of aid to Ukraine. He pointed out that President Obama had done something similar regarding aid to Egypt.

Watch:

Former Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr

Starr has the most experience with impeachment as his investigation and subsequent report of Bill Clinton's scandals e.g. Whitewater, perjury, and Vince Foster's suicide led to the impeachment of Clinton in 1998.

The House Managers have finally made it to the Senate to begin the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. During the next three days, they, as well as the president's legal team, Chief Justice Roberts, and the Senate will be deciding what rules will guide the trial.

Democrats want more

Unsurprisingly, the Democrat managers are demanding more discovery, more witnesses, more evidence. These demands come after weeks of the House Democrats insisting that their impeachment case is "infallible," "undisputed," etc.

If that is so, why do they need more evidence and witnesses? They are admitting that they don't really have a case that will hold up without the extra evidence and witnesses.

Fairness for whom?

The House Democrats say they want a fair trial, but anyone who has been following the impeachment inquiry knows that they ran a very one-sided inquiry, forbidding the president's lawyers to participate for 71 of the 78 days it took to complete the inquiry. In fact, it has been all Democrat impeachment show, all the time.

You have to hand it to the Democrats, they never stop, whether they have a case or not. They never let the truth get in the way.

They continue to argue that they are fair and the Republicans are not. If those arguments don't appear disingenuous to you, they should after you listen to the president's lawyers.

President Trump's lawyers put things in perspective

Deputy Counsel to the President Patrick Philbin clearly explains in the video below the abusive behavior of the House Democrats in bringing an incomplete case to the Senate. He pointed out that in a real court of law, the Democrats would be thrown out.

Philbin quoted Manager Adam Schiff, "If you only allow one side to present evidence, the outcome will be pre-determined," and pointed out that that is exactly what the Democrats did in the House. As Philbin said, Schiff has a lot of gall!

Amendments ad nauseam

The Democrats continue to propose amendments to Senate Resolution 483 to subpoena more evidence, most of it from sources that would be covered by executive privilege. So far, the Republicans in the Senate are voting in a solid block to table the amendments according to Senator Marsha Blackburn. At this time, six or seven amendments have been proposed and tabled along party lines, Republicans 53 to Democrats 47.

I predict that the trial in the Senate is going to become very tedious and unwatchable.

The rule that the Senators are not allowed to talk about the trial must not yet apply, as both Democrat and Republican senators are commenting to the press at this time.

Watch:

In all of the noise surrounding impeachment, it is easy to lose sight of the facts. Here are some important ones to keep at the forefront of your mind as we move into week one of the Senate impeachment trial.

No crimes in the articles of impeachment

The House Democrats did not charge President Trump with a crime in either of their two articles of impeachment. A constitutional impeachment would be based on at least one high crime, bribery or misdemeanors. There are none. That makes the impeachment unconstitutional. If the Senate treats this impeachment as legitimate they will be setting precedents that the Democrats can use again and again against Republican presidents.

A Democrat Impeachment

This impeachment is a Democrat impeachment. No Republicans voted to adopt the articles.

Impeachment was always the Democrat plan

Many of the Democrats in the House, the media, and the DOJ have been trying to impeach the president long before President Trump ever made the July 25 call to Ukraine President Zelenskiy. In fact, Nancy Pelosi admitted that the Democrats have been working on impeachment more than 2 1/2 years. The call to Zelenskiy just gave them a new opportunity after the Mueller investigation failed to produce any impeachable crimes.

So-called "evidence" is no evidence

All of the "evidence" that the House Democrats have is either hearsay, or "expert" opinions, or opinions of career government bureaucrats, e.g. Marie Yovanovitch, Bill Taylor, Gordon Sondland, Noah Feldman, Alexander Vindman, et al.

They have the whistleblower letter which is full of second-hand information, as the whistleblower was not a witness to the call. The only real evidence is the transcript of that July 25th call to the Ukraine president that Trump released himself. None of this so-called "evidence" would be sufficient to convict anyone in a court of law.

Kellyanne Conway points out in the video below that the House inquiry was not like a trial at all, with Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, the "judges," verbally abusing the president from the "bench." They were not impartial, and that was obvious to anyone who watched.

The House Republicans on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees did a great job defending the president during the House inquiries, but does anyone need reminding that the president did not receive due process in the House? President Trump will finally get his turn in the trial in the senate and the whole world will hear from the president's lawyers.

President Trump has assembled a team of high-powered lawyers: Jay Sekulow, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Pat Cipollone, Robert Ray, Pam Bondi, and Jane Raskin. They have already urged the Senate to reject the charges, writing,

The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away.

Watch:

If you are not a Democrat in charge of California, you might have noticed the sad decline of the once-great state. Most of the decline can be tied to Democrat policies. If you don't want your state to look like California, don't vote Democrats into office.

That's right. The state of Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and Maxine Waters is an unmitigated disaster.

Newsom, Brown and the Democrats

If you listen to Governor Gavin Newsom or former Governor Jerry Brown, you might think that California is the best state in the country.

Brown and Newsom and many Democrats like to crow about all that California is doing to stop climate change. They have taxed gasoline more, established cap and trade, and set goals to make California "carbon-neutral" by 2040. They have pushed for electric cars, wanting 5 million of them on the road by 2030.

But here's a dirty little secret. The electricity used to charge the cars is still being largely produced using fossil fuels. In 2018, Governor Brown signed a bill mandating that 100% of California's electricity grid would be powered by "green"  sources by 2045. And of course, while the state is transitioning to greener sources of energy, the cost of electricity is much higher in most of California than in other states.

High energy costs

Meanwhile, the people in California are bearing the brunt of the pet policies of the Democrat leadership. The governor is a Democrat, and both the Assembly and the Senate are majority Democrat, so these policies are passed even though they hurt the state's economy.

If you don't qualify for home energy subsidies, you are spending a lot of money on electricity. Californians that rely on PGE for their power can spend $400-$500 a month if they are heating or cooling their homes. Price per kWh can be almost $0.40. Gas prices range from $3-$4 throughout the year.

Devastating wildfires and climate change

For all the talk about the dangers of climate change, Gov. Brown and Gov. Schwarzenegger (a Republican and an environmentalist) before him really didn't prepare California for the devastating wildfires that have burned throughout the state the last five years. and it's not like they hadn't been warned.

In 2006, the Western Governors Association proposed that the overgrowth in western forests could be used to produce electricity cheaply at about 8 cents per KWH, and reduce not only carbon emissions but also the undergrowth that could fuel devastating wildfires.

As the vast forests of the Western United States have become overgrown over the past century, dramatic wildfires have become more common, putting vital habitats, watersheds, and communities at risk. The biomass energy industry offers a low environmental impact, productive use for dead wood that would otherwise require open burning or – more likely – serve as fuel for a future wildfire. Use of woody biomass for energy production provides an important economic incentive for fuel treatment.

If only Schwarzenegger and Brown had acted back then.

But, instead of cleaning up the forests, both state and federal, they spent a lot of time getting legislation into place to change our energy production grid. (After the devastating Camp Fire in 2018, Brown, just before leaving office, did sign two bills that address forest management.) The fires have cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It makes one wonder if the Democrats really believed what they were saying about the urgency of climate change.

These recent wildfires have hurt people in the rural areas of California as insurance companies refuse to renew policies and people have to pay thousands more for the California Fair plan to insure their homes. Home values are starting to decline, too, which, for most folks, is their biggest asset.

Power outages

PGE, the state-sponsored utility monopoly,  has been responsible for starting many of the recent wildfires. They have chosen to try to avoid sparking more fires by improving their infrastructure, but while they are doing that, they are also shutting off the power if there is an impending wind event in an area.

This policy has led to many rolling blackouts in the fall of 2019, which has led to many businesses, schools, and households to go without the electricity needed to run pretty much everything. PGE plans on using this policy for several more years.

A laundry list of problems making the state less livable

Many Californians moved into the rural/wildland interface to escape the urban areas of the state which have become intolerably crowded, and more lately, crime-ridden, dirty, dangerous and depressing. The state population continues to grow, but water storage, and housing remain inadequate for the new residents.

California's sanctuary state law SB54, income taxes (top at 13%), energy taxes, gas taxes (47.3 cents/gallon), building restrictions (low growth, no growth policies), criminal justice reform laws, and the homelessness epidemic have combined to make living in the state intolerable for many now.

Small businesses and farms struggling

Small businesses struggle to remain open as new minimum wage laws make labor too expensive. Income taxes take a large chunk of everyone's earnings. Healthcare costs are high.

Farmers in the big valley, the country's most productive farmland, have been struggling over water rights for years, now, as it seems our leaders value wild and free rivers and fish over our agricultural economic engine and the families that farm.

Many farmers have sold their farms and moved to other states or quit farming altogether. A decline in California's agricultural output will affect the whole country as a large majority of the nation's fruit and vegetables are grown there.

Dirty cities

Visiting our once beautiful and desirable cities has become a health hazard as the streets in San Francisco and Los Angeles are littered with human excrement, drug paraphernalia, and mentally unstable and often drunk or high homeless people. Many other cities in the state have the same problems, as California has the highest homeless population in the country.

Big budget small results

California has a huge state budget, nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, but our infrastructure continues to crumble, and the state agencies seem powerless and moneyless to fix anything. Californians drive on roads that are so bad that their cars fall apart faster.

California spends hundreds of millions of dollars on the homeless problem, but it continues to grow worse. The press will only run stories lauding the homeless, but first-hand accounts from first responders tell a different story.

Hospitals and first responders are spending a lot of time and resources on the homeless, and they are even putting their lives in danger to aid the homeless, frequently being attacked as they render services.

Don't let your state look like California

Though some people, like Democrat candidate Michael Bloomberg, want the rest of the country to look like California, many Californians have read the writing on the wall, so to speak, and are voting with their feet to find states that don't.

WATCH:

Lev Parnas, associate of Rudy Guliani, is the latest Democrat darling on whom the impeachment crowd are pinning their hopes to remove President Trump. The House Democrats want the Senate to allow witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Trump and Parnas is on the list.

Who is Lev Parnas?

Lev Parnas was born in Odessa, Ukraine in 1972 when Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union. He didn't live there long as his parents brought him to the United States in 1975.  They lived in Detroit and then in New York.

He founded a company called Global Energy Producers, and then in 2013 a company named Fraud Guarantee. The Wall Street Journal reported that the name Fraud Guarantee was chosen to put help Parnas with Google searches.

Apparently, his name was already associated with fraud in a negative way, so he "fixed" that with a company that supposedly helped people who had been defrauded.

Parnas and Igor Fruman were arrested at Dulles Airport back in October 2019 for election finance violations, conspiracy, making false statements and falsifying records.

So it's a legitimate question: is Lev Parnas a credible witness?

Pelosi on Parnas

At the end of her press conference recently, Nancy Pelosi was asked if Lev Parnas would be a credible witness. She quickly brought up the documents that were released and said it seemed that the documents would support what Parnas has been saying about working for the president.

The reporter pressed and asked if Parnas could be credible since he was under a federal indictment? Pelosi said he could be in relation to the impeachment. In other words, she did not say that Parnas was credible.

Watch Pelosi respond to questions about Parnas.

Adam Schiff on Parnas

Foreign Minister of Ukraine Vadym Prystaiko on Parnas

Foreign Minister of Ukraine Vadym Prystaiko, familiar with US aid to Ukraine, said that he doesn't trust a word that Parnas is saying. (He also said the withholding of US aid was not unusual.)

Jake Tapper on Parnas

CNN's Jake Tapper had this to say,

We can’t ignore Parnas has a serious credibility problem. He’s under indictment for campaign finance charges. The foreign minister of Ukraine told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that he doesn’t trust a word Parnas is saying. And yet I see people out there on social media — Democrats — acting as if this guy is the second coming of Theodore Roosevelt or something.”

Parnas on Parnas

Last November, Parnas said he spoke with the president in a private meeting about Ukraine. Now, Parnas has said he never spoke privately to President Trump about Ukraine.

"In the interview with The Times, Mr. Parnas said that although he did not speak with Mr. Trump directly about the efforts, he met with the president on several occasions and was told by Mr. Giuliani that Mr. Trump was kept in the loop."

The rest of the usual suspects, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Joe Scarborough, etc. are absolutely certain that Parnas is credible and that his interviews on their shows have been absolute bombshells, even though Parnas, like all the other Democrat witnesses, has no first-hand knowledge of what the president said about Ukraine.  No surprise there.

But one has to wonder why Pelosi and Schiff want Parnas to testify?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi named her seven impeachment house managers on Wednesday, January 15 in a signing ceremony. She also handed out special "impeachment" pens to commemorate the occasion.

The White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham tweeted,“Nancy Pelosi’s souvenir pens served up on silver platters to sign the sham articles of impeachment... She was so somber as she gave them away to people like prizes.”

Stateswoman Pelosi

In a sad attempt at statesmanship, Pelosi tried to wax poetic about how the times have charged the House Democrats with the duty of impeaching the President of the United States. I am afraid that history will not find her very statesmanlike.

Talking about time, one cannot help but think about how unimportant time has been the last few weeks as she held the articles of impeachment. Pelosi and the House Democrats seem to be satisfied that President Trump will be "impeached forever."

Pelosi did try to justify the delay by blaming the Senate for not letting her know how the trial would be conducted, although  Senate Leader Mitch McConnell let the world know that the trial would follow the precedent of the Clinton impeachment trial. She also said that"Time has been our friend" as she brought up more things she would like the Senate to incorporate into the trial.

Pelosi still insists that the hold on aid to Ukraine was illegal and wants new evidence admitted to substantiate that. She also wants to bring in new information from John Bolton.

Voters Not Vadimir Plootin

In one particularly cringey moment, Pelosi said that "Voters should decide who the president is, not Vadimir Plootin." She seemed to have trouble enunciating during the announcement.

As far as letting Putin choose our president, apparently, the 63 million people that voted for President Trump the first time had nothing to do with putting Donald Trump in the White House, it was all Putin! Such is the alternate universe Pelosi lives in.

The House Managers

The House managers are all litigators: Adam Schiff (CA), Jerry Nadler (NY), Zoe Lofgren (CA), Jakeem Jeffries (NY), Val Demings (FL), Jason Crow (CO), Silvia Garcia (TX). Pelosi said they were chosen for their courtroom experience and "The emphasis is on comfort in the courtroom."

WATCH:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy believes that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has withheld from the Senate the articles of impeachment to delay the start of the Senate trial. A late start will keep candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders in the Senate chamber rather than on the campaign in Iowa.

Is this a coincidence? 

Pelosi delays to harm Sanders and help Biden

McCarthy suggested that Pelosi has delayed sending the impeachment articles to the Senate to ensure that Bernie Sanders will be sitting at his desk in the Senate instead of campaigning to win the February 3rd Iowa caucuses.

Once Pelosi sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate, the trial will begin. Once the trial begins, no other business will be conducted by the Senate, and the senators will be at their desks six days a week until the trial is over.

Even if Pelosi sends the articles to the Senate later this week, McCarthy does not think the trial could start until the next week. Bill Clinton's impeachment trial took five weeks. During the trial, Senators must work six days a week until the trial is completed. The Iowa Democratic Caucus is on February 3rd. On this timetable, four of the Democrat candidates will be sitting in the Senate that day: Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. This gives a big advantage to Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden.

Why doesn't the Democrat leadership want Bernie?

Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, and others in Democrat leadership are afraid that Sanders will not be able to win the presidency because he is openly socialist, which may play well with the base, but won't win votes in the campaign against President Trump. His plan to replace private health care insurance with Medicare for all would not do well in swing states.

Emmanuel pointed out that a Sanders candidacy would make it hard to win over the battleground states. “You need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters in battleground states. The degree of difficulty dramatically increases under a Bernie Sanders's candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.”

But Sanders is now polling in first place in Iowa, replacing Pete Buttigieg who has fallen behind Sanders and Warren but remains ahead of Joe Biden.

If Sanders is stuck in the Senate for weeks, it is likely to hurt his campaign with just over 3 weeks until the Iowa caucuses.

The Democrats rigged the nomination against Sanders in 2016

Would it be out of character for the Democrats to try to harm Sanders' campaign? Oh wait, there is precedent for that from the Democrat party in 2016!

Bernie Sanders accused the DNC of rigging the nomination process to favor Hillary Clinton back in 2016. Donna Brazile and Elizabeth Warren said the same thing.

WATCH:

This is not about fairness or love for the Constitution, If Nancy Pelosi's delay to deliver the articles of impeachment has been about harming Bernie Sanders, she is showing herself to be a cynical political hack that puts party and power before country. But we already knew that.

After refusing for days to take responsibility for the missile strike that took Ukrainian Flight 752 down, Iran finally admitted that they shot the Boeing 737 down with an SA-15 anti-ballistic missile. They attributed the tragedy that killed 176 people to operator error, but they are still placing blame on the US, too.

The Victims

The victims of Flight 752 hailed from seven different countries including Iran. The passenger count  was Iran 82, Canada 63, Ukraine 11, Sweden 10, Afghanistan 4, UK 3, Germany 3

Iranian government takes responsibility, sort of

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the missile strike was an unforgivable mistake and that Iran would improve its defense systems to avoid such accidents.

According to the Washington Examiner, "The accident occurred while the Iranian military was on high alert and while Tehran neglected to ground civilian flights that night, a Western intelligence official told the Washington Examiner."

Iran still blames the US

Even after having to finally admit that the missile strike was their fault, Iran is blaming the US for the accident. Iranian Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif cited "human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster."

Iranians protest Supreme Leader

But Iranians are blaming Khameinei's government and the IRGC. They are furious and have poured into the streets to protest the fatal mistake. They hold the IRGC and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei responsible for the deaths of 176 people, and are demanding to know why all planes weren't grounded while Iran was attacking Iraq. They want Khameinei out.

President Trump tweets a warning to Tehran

President Trump has been monitoring the protests in Iran. He warned the Iranian government not to shut down the internet or harm the protestors. He warned that the world is watching what they do.

It has been a long time since the Democrats in the House passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump on December 18, 2019.

But now, Nancy Pelosi is finally ready to send the impeachment articles to the Senate

The Speaker of the House announced she will send the articles of impeachment to the Senate next week after holding them for more than 3 weeks. She denies that she was feeling pressure from her own party, but Democrats in the House and Senate have started urging her to send them.

Senate Democrats break ranks

Pelosi held the articles for so long that even some of her Democratic colleagues were questioning her methods. Senator Diane Feinstein told Pelosi this week to send the articles or drop it (Feinstein did walk that back later.) “The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes. So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, both Democrats, said the Senate needs to move ahead with the trial, whether they get their witnesses or not.

Even a House Democrat, Adam Smith, chair of the Armed Services Committee urged Pelosi to send the articles.

WATCH:

Remember when Impeachment was urgent?

Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Jerrold Nadler, and the rest of the Democrats that could get face time with the press spent over 3 months insisting that impeaching President Trump was a matter of national security. They rushed through show hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee in which a lot of "witnesses" testified about their disagreements with President Trump's decisions. Then they spent more time on television telling us how corrupt and criminal this president is, and how urgent it is to get him out of office before he corrupted the 2020 election.

Only Democrats voted to impeach Trump

On a party-line vote, the Democrats voted to impeach the president and then...nothing. The articles were not delivered to the Senate, Pelosi didn't want to talk about impeachment, and for the last 3 weeks, everyone has been wondering if the impeachment is going to happen. It has been so long you might have to refresh your memory on what the articles even were. Something about abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, I think.

Pelosi justified the withholding, saying she was keeping the articles until Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority leader would explain how the trial would work. She also wanted to call more witnesses and subpoena more documents. Translation: Pelosi was making demands and was waiting until McConnell caved into them. But, the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments, so Pelosi can't control the process once the articles are delivered.

What urgency?

When Pelosi refused to send the articles to the Senate, ordinary Americans knew they had been scammed. There was no urgency to remove the president on the part of Pelosi or the Democrats anymore. We had all been manipulated by the Democrats and the mainstream media.

The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments

Meanwhile, McConnell and the Senate are moving forward using the precedents set by the Clinton impeachment, in which there was a briefing, opening arguments, questions from Senators and a vote to dismiss. McConnell has the votes needed to move forward without having to grant concessions to the Democrats, and most likely to vote to dismiss.

McConnell has said that the impeachment is a sham and should be dispensed with as quickly as possible.  Growing the impeachment trial with witnesses and more testimony will certainly tie up the Senate for too long, and as McConnell said, ''they have other things to do."

We can only hope that this will all be over soon.

Copyright© 2025 - Conservative Institute LLC - All Rights Reserved