Dems Cannot Beat Trump, So They Impeach Trump, Volume Three: The Senate Trial and Its Aftermath (Late January to Early February 2020, Updates Through October 2020)

By Gary F. Zeolla

This three-volume set covers the impeachment of Donald J. Trump that occurred over the fall of 2019 to the winter of 2020. It was yet one more attempt to oust the President from office by Democrats, who never accepted he won in 2016.

It began when Trump made a phone call on July 25, 2019, the day after Robert Mueller testified before Congress. A complaint about that phone call led an impeachment inquiry to begin in early September, and the resultant proceedings tore America apart at the seams.

All of these events were occurring against the backdrop of the 2020 Presidential election, which was already well underway, even though the election itself was still over a year away. As will be seen, and as the title of this three-volume set implies, that election was in fact the real impetus for the impeachment.

This trilogy will enable the reader to go back and get caught up on all that you missed. Though this whole fiasco will be over when this trilogy is published, it will be good for Americans to have a history of what happened, as that could affect how they vote in November 2020.

We also will sadly see many similar situations in the future. In fact, that was a talking point of Republicans throughout the impeachment proceedings, that Democrats are so watering down impeachment that it will be used as a political weapon anytime in the future when the President is of one party and the House is controlled by the other party. As such, it is important to remember what happened during this impeachment when the next one occurs.

In addition, this trilogy will help the reader understand the rancor seen in Washington in general and the dishonest bias of the mainstream media. It will also be seen that the two sides can look at the same evidence and come to two completely different conclusions.

These three volumes also answer a question the author has often been asked—how can the author, as a conservative Christian, support such a “crude” person as President Trump?

This Volume Three covers the Senate trial and its aftermath, along with impeachment related updates through the summer of 2020.

It also focuses on the quid pro quo and corruption on the part of Joe Biden. It is important for voters to be reminded of these corrupt actions on the part Biden while he was VP. Now, as President, it will be good to remember how he used the power of his office as VP to enrich his own family members. That way, we can be on the lookout for him to do so even more so now.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Apr 7, 2021
• ISBN: 9781716196621

Book preview

Dems Cannot Beat Trump, So They Impeach Trump, Volume Three: The Senate Trial and Its Aftermath (Late January to Early February 2020, Updates Through October 2020)

By Gary F. Zeolla

Copyrighted © 2020, 2023 by Gary F. Zeolla

All rights reserved.

ISBN:

978-1-716-19662-1

Introductory Pages Note

Volume One included several introductory pages. These include details relevant to all three volumes: explanations of the format used, the relevant parts of the US Constitution, definitions of terms and abbreviations used, and details on the Bible version quoted. These pages are not repeated in this Volumes Three.

Preface

This is the third of a three-volume set. This trilogy covers the impeachment of Donald J. Trump that occurred over the fall of 2019 into the winter of 2020.

The impeachment of President Trump was yet one more attempt to oust President Trump from office by Democrats, who never accepted he won in 2016. A complaint about a phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky led the Dem-controlled House to begin an impeachment inquiry in early September 2019.

These impeachment proceedings began as the Mueller investigation into alleged Trump/ Russian collusion in the 2016 election ended, culminating in the Mueller report and his testimony before Congress. That witch hunt was just one of many attempts by Dems and the mainstream media (MSM) to disparage and to remove President Trump from office.

There were also false claims Trump has dementia and attempts to remove him from office via the 25th amendment, the Stormy Daniels charade, the emoluments clause schemes, the constant badgering to get Trump’s tax returns, unending lies about Trump being a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, or some such negative label. These attempts are chronicled on my politics website and in my book Tearing the USA Apart.

That background is important to remember as we review this impeachment fiasco. This was not the first attempt to remove President Trump from office or at least to disparage him, nor was it the last. As this fiasco was occurring, something was brewing in China that would go on to affect the entire world. But Dems and the MSM would also try to use that crisis to disparage the President.

I am of course referring to the Coronavirus. In this three-volume set, I will mention the Coronavirus when dates coincide between what was brewing in China and these proceedings.

We also will sadly see many more impeachments in the future. In fact, that was a talking point of Republicans throughout these impeachment proceedings, that Dems are so watering down impeachment that it will be used as a political weapon anytime in the future when the President is of one party and the House is controlled by the other party.

If Trump wins the 2020 election and Dems retain control of the House, then there very well could be an Impeachment 2.0. If that happens, it will be good to remember what happened this time, so that the reader can be on the lookout for the same tricks to be used next time.

If Joe Biden wins, and if tradition holds and Republicans retake control of the House in 2022, then it could be a President Biden who gets impeached. The basis for doing so is already laid out in this volume, as this Volume Three focuses on the quid pro quo and corruption on the part of Joe Biden.

But even if he is not impeached, it is important for Americans to be reminded of these corrupt actions when Biden was Vice President and how he used the power of his office as VP to enrich his own family member. That way, we can be on the lookout for Biden to act even more corruptly if he attains the even more powerful office of President.

This Volume Three covers the impeachment trial in the US Senate in January to February 2020 and its aftermath. In the trial, both sides were given an equal opportunity to present their arguments. This debate exposes the rancor in Washington and why nothing ever seems to get done. Both sides talk past each other, neither side listening to the other.

This volume also provides updates of related issues through October 2020, to just prior to the presidential election of November 3, 2020.

Chronology of this Book and Follow-Up Book

The entirety of this Volume Three was written prior to the presidential election of November 3, 2020. As the subtitle indicates, the bulk of this volume focuses on the impeachment trial in the Senate that occurred from late January to early February 2020. But this book then provides updates through October 2020, to just prior to the 2020 election.

I have plans for a follow-up book that will cover that election and its aftermath. I am not sure of the title yet, as I need to wait for those elections results to be finalized. But it will pick up the story where this book leaves off.

About the Author

The author has a B.S. in Nutrition Science (Penn State; 1983) and attended Denver Seminary from 1988-1990. Zeolla is the director, webmaster, and primary writer for his four websites:

Zeolla.org personal website (www.Zeolla.org)

Darkness to Light Christian Ministry (www.Zeolla.org/Christian)

Fitness for One and All (www.Zeolla.org/Fitness)

Biblical and Constitutional Politics (www.Zeolla.org/Politics)

Zeolla is the translator of the Analytical-Literal Translation of the Bible and the author of over 40 Christian, fitness, and politics books. He is also a powerlifter, holding fifteen all-time world records and over 100 federation records. A detailed autobiography is available on his personal website. Details on these writings are found in Appendixes Three and Four.

Section One: First Half of the Senate Trial, Late January 2020

#1 – Days One and Two of the Senate Trial, Rules Debate and House Managers Present Their Case: Part One

This chapter will cover the first four days of the Senate trial of Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States. The first day of the Senate Trial was on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. It was devoted to a debate on the rules. The next three days involved the House Managers presenting their case as to why President Trump should be removed from office.

I mostly recorded the House hearings on Fox News Channel (FNC), but I mostly recorded each day of the Senate trial on CNN. That was because CNN had a large block from 12:30-7:00 pm for each day. That made it easy to be sure I recorded at least most of each day. But after 7:00 pm, I recorded whichever station seem to be mostly airing the trial itself, rather than talking over it.

The CNN pundits during breaks gave me a different perspective than I have been getting from FNC. To no surprise, CNN tried to spin things in as bad a light as possible for the President, while FNC was more balanced. But no matter, as I mostly fast forward through the pundits on both stations anyhow.

I will not cover each day of the Senate trial in the same detail as I did most of the House hearings in Volumes One and Two, as much of what was said here was a repetition of what was said there. As such, I will only give some highlights for each day here. I will also mostly refrain from commenting on the presentations by the House Mangers here, as I will present my responses to them in Chapter Three.

A Quick Review

Before getting to the trial, it would be good to have a quick review.

Just as in the House hearings, in the Senate trial, Democrats (Dems) will claim the same scenario over and over again. I summarized this scenario in Volume Two, but I will do so again now to remind the reader of these points. And it will save me having to write them out each time. I will just call this scenario the Dem talking points. The scenario is represented in the following quote:

President Trump abused the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain, thereby jeopardizing our national security, the integrity of our elections, and our democracy (WSJ. Democrats).

You can add to this the Dem claim that Trump demanded President Zelensky conduct two politically motived investigations into debunked conspiracy theories. The first was of Joe Biden, Trump’s political rival. The second was of the baseless, Putin-pushed conspiracy theory that Ukraine not Russia interfered in our 2016 election.

Dems say the release of the vital $391 million in military aid and a coveted White House meeting were conditioned on these investigations. Dems further claim Trump is trying to make himself a king and dictator by declaring, Article II means I can do whatever I want. They further say these behaviors are ongoing, as Trump continues to try to cheat to win in 2020 by soliciting foreign interference in our elections, just as he did in 2016.

That is for impeachment article one. For impeachment article two, the Dem talking point is the President engaged in an unprecedented obstruction of Congress, by withholding every requested document and blocking every requested witness.

Whenever I say, Dem talking points, I am referring to these ideas.

The Republican (Repub) talking points will then be the opposite of these scenarios and to rebuke these claims. Their basic message is that there were legitimate reasons for the two desired investigations and that the aid and meeting were not tied to these investigations. These points are supported by Jim Jordan’s four unchaining facts and the five meetings. For a quick review, the four unchaining facts are:

1. We have the transcript. There are no conditions in the transcript. No quid pro quo.

2. The two individuals on the call, Presidents Trump and Zelensky, have said there was no pushing. No pressure. No nothing.

3. The Ukrainians did not know aid had been held up at the time of the phone call.

4. The Ukrainians did nothing to free up the aid.  No investigation. No nothing.

The five meetings were between US and Ukrainian officials. They occurred between the July 25 phone call, which was when the military aid was paused, and September 11, when the aid was released. In the four of them in August, no concern about the aid was voiced, and the Ukrainians gave no hint they even knew the aid had been paused.

A July 26 meeting was with Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Zelensky, and Zelensky said the call was fine. The last meeting was on September 1. That was three days after the Political article of August 28 revealed about the aid hold. That last meeting was between Vice President Mike Pence and Zelensky. That was the first time Zelensky asked about the aid, but he made no mention he thought it was being withheld for investigations. Pence assured him it would soon be released, which it was, nine days later.

As for impeachment article two, Repubs say Trump claimed various legal reasons and/ or executive privilege over the Dem requested witness and documents. The way to settle that dispute is to go to the courts, not to impeach the President.

Again, whenever I say, Repub talking points, I am referring to these ideas.

Finally, Trump’s defense team was generally referred to as the counsel for the President throughout the trial, but for convenience sake, I will simply refer to them as Team Trump.

First Day of the Senate Trial

Rules Debate

The first day of the Senate trial was supposed to begin at 1:00 pm on Tuesday, January 21, 2020.  But before it began, at 12:30 pm, Barry Black, the Senate Chaplain, gave a nice invocation. I was pleased CNN paused their punditry to air his prayer.

Then Mitch McConnell gave a short speech. He outlined the four stages to the trial that I will presently shortly. He said this was the same format used for Clinton’s impeachment. He also said the Senate would not be doing the House’s job. However, the Senate trial will he fair, unlike the House’s process.

Chuck Schumer then gave a counter speech. He said the press must be present for the trial. I’m not sure why he felt a need to say that, as I never heard any reports that Mitch was considering a closed trial.

In any case, Chuck then gave the Dem talking points that I just outlined. He then claimed McConnell’s rules were completely partisan. He said Mitch was trying to have a rushed trial with no evidence in the dark of night. He then claimed his plan was not close to the Clinton rules. He then gave arguments for additional witnesses and documents in the Senate trial. I will detail those as we go on.

But here, the first day of the trial began at 1:18 pm EST on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. It started 18 minutes late, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel made a couple of last-minute changes to the rules.

Before the session started on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) altered his own proposed rules, issued a day earlier, after Democrats and a key centrist Republican objected to his plan to squeeze 24 hours of opening arguments by the prosecution and defense into two days each. Instead, each side is now scheduled to get three days. Mr. McConnell also said evidence gathered in the House impeachment probe over the fall would be automatically entered into the Senate record, reversing his earlier stance (WSJ. Senate).

These changes rendered mute Chuck’s talk about a rushed trial with no evidence in the dark of night.

Before the proceedings started, Chief Justice Roberts sworn in Senator Jim Inhofe, as he missed the swearing in ceremony the week before due to a family medical emergency. Then Michael Stenger, the Sergeant at Arms, declared for everyone to remain silent under pain of imprisonment.

Justice Roberts then gave a list of documents that had been received. Then the resolution of the rules and procedures were read. Lead Trump lawyer Pat Cipollone would speak first, then Head House Manager Adam Schiff would speak.

Once the proceedings started, it was not the trial per se. It was supposed to be a rules debate, consisting of arguments over the structure of the trial. Mitch McConnel opened the proceedings by relating the four planned steps. These are as previously reported:

Opening arguments from House Managers.

Opening arguments from Team Trump.

Written questions to either side through the Chief Justice.

Consider if more evidence or witnesses are needed.

Mitch said this plan would give fairness to both sides, unlike the unfairness that was seen in the House proceedings. He added the House could have subpoenaed additional witlessness and documents, but Dems now want the Senate to do their job.

The rest of the day was spent arguing and voting about when to decide on if additional witnesses would be called and more documents would be subpoenaed. Dems made seven amendments in this regard before midnight.

For instance, the first amendment was by Chuck Schumer, and it was for all White House documents to be subpoenaed from January 1, 2019 to the present in regard to Ukraine. He then gave a long list of specific documents he wanted subpoenaed. The second amendment was for the same from the State Department, then the third for the same from the OMB.

After each proposed amendment, there were up to two hours of debate, one hour for each side.

I stopped recording at midnight. But I heard later, before it was over, Dems submitted eleven proposals to amend the rules to allow additional witnesses and documents, but each time, the amendments were voted down along strict party lines, 53-47.

Please, note, these debates and votes were not about if there would be additional witnesses and documents. It was just over if the debate and votes over such should occur now, at the start of the trial, or at phase four, as just outlined.

Repubs argued that it made more sense to hear if there was sufficient cause to extend the trial for more witnesses and documents based on what evidence had already been gathered. Dems wanted the Senators to pre-commit to such, without hearing what evidence had already been gathered, and if that was sufficient cause for more investigation.

Dems specially asked for Mick Mulvaney (Acting Chief of Staff to President Trump), Robert Blair (an assistant to President Trump and Senior Adviser to Mick Mulvaney), and John S. Eisenberg (Assistant and Deputy Counsel to the President and Legal Advisor to the NSC), as witnesses. They said the latter was in the loop in all of Trump’s Ukraine activities. I did not hear former National Security Advisor (NSA) John Bolton mentioned, but he might have been after midnight.

Dems also specified which documents they wanted. Some were emails and notes the various House witnesses had taken but which they did not have access to during those proceedings.

To cover a few points of note, Dems called the investigations Trump wanted phony. But remember, they did not allow Repubs to call the witnesses in the House that would have established the probable cause for those investigations. Thus, Dems wanted Repubs to call more witnesses in the Senate trial to establish their case, but Dems denied Repubs the witnesses in the House hearings to establish their case.

In regard to the charge of obstruction, Repubs argued that the President was not obligated to respond to the Dem’s subpoenas in the House, as they were not valid since there was not yet a House vote to start the impeachment inquiry when they were issued.

Dems argued the President never actually asserted executive privilege of their wanted witnesses and documents. Repubs argued that was subsumed under some finer point of the relevant law and precedent that I did not quite understand. But it had to do with claims of executive immunity.

There was also much debate about the process in the House. Repubs harped on the President’s lawyers not being allowed to participate in the proceedings in the HIC. Dems argued that White House lawyers would have intimidated the witnesses; that is why they were not allowed.

Dems claimed Repubs called one-third of the witnesses in the House hearings. That was a flat-out lie, as a FNC pundit pointed out. As I explained in Volume Two, out of the 17 witnesses, only one was a Repub-only witness. Even if you add in the three witnesses that both Repubs and Dems wanted, that is still only four of 17, hardy one-third.

Repubs pointed out that Dems wanted to take Trump off of the ballot in the November election. That would deny voters the right to choose who they want for President. I never thought of it that way, but it is true. If Trump were removed from office by the Senate, constitutionally, that would mean he could never again hold public office. That would mean he could not be on the ballot in the fall.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States (US Constitution. Article I. Section 3).

In the process of their arguments, Dems made several mentions of Lev Parnas. He was mentioned late in Volume Two, after the articles of impeachment were drafted. A FNC pundit pointed out that Repubs should have objected, assuming facts not in evidence, as there is no mention of Parnas in the record. As such, mention of him shouldn’t be admitted in the trial.

The last proposed amendment I heard concerned some finer point of law about the sharing of subpoena material, including classified material. That was right before the trial took a recess at 11:20 pm. It was supposed to be a hard five minutes, but it lasted until 11:40 pm. Again, my recording ended at midnight, so I did not see the conclusion of that argumenta and vote.

But no matter, as in the end, the Senate voted to adopt the rules as proposed by Mitch at the start of the long day strictly along party lines, 53-47. Consequently, it was a completely wasted day that ran into the wee hours of Wednesday morning, until almost 2 am EST. Since I only recorded until midnight, I missed the ending and the final vote itself.

The resolution, which passed on a 53-47 party-line vote after more than a dozen hours of debate, sets up a structure that is fair, evenhanded and tracks closely with past precedents that were established unanimously, Mr. McConnell said. Democrats favored the rule changes but also unsuccessfully proposed amendments for subpoenas to be issued for witnesses and documents blocked by the White House related to Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine (WSJ. Senate).

It’s a shame I didn’t record after midnight, as there was a dust up after that time, which the Chief Justice had to calm down.

A marathon, 12-hour first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight Wednesday morning, as Trump’s legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. -- in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber (Fox News. Chief).

Having heard the clip, this report, has it backwards. It was when Jerry said Pat Philbin, one of Trump’s lawyers, was lying that the Chief Justice intervened. Though that was the precipitating incident, the Justice still rebuked both sides.

McConnell’s rules, which were eventually adopted in a 53-47 party-line vote at 1:40 a.m. ET Wednesday and largely mirror those from the Bill Clinton impeachment trial in 1999, permit new witnesses and documents to be considered only later on in the proceedings, after opening arguments are made (Fox News. Chief).

Again, do not miss that the issue of witnesses and documents will be considered, just not now. That is important, as the way the situation had been reported in some media outlets, it made it sound like Repubs voted to not allow witnesses at all. Again, all that was tabled now was the vote to have witnesses. That vote will be taken later, as phase four of the trial, just as Mitch proposed before this over twelve-hour marathon even began. Don’t fall for the fake-media spin.

It should also be noted that some Repub Senators have said the whole question of witnesses and documents is not to get at the truth as Dems claim. It is simply to put Repubs Senators in swing states in a tough spot. If they vote for new witnesses, that could hurt them with their Republican base. But if they vote against witnesses, that could hurt them with independents and Democrats. In other words, it is all about the 2020 election, just as I’ve been saying all along. But here, it is not the presidential election that is in view but the various Senator elections.

During one of the breaks, Jim Jordan talked with Chris Wallace on FNC. In the interview, he reiterated his four unchanging facts. I already repeated them, but it would be good to let him repeat them here in his own words.

"The idea that we have the transcript [of Trump’s July 25 phone call with President Zelensky], there was no quid pro quo in the transcript, the two individuals on the call, President Trump and President Zelensky, have repeatedly said that there was no pushing, no pressure, no linkage between the security assistance dollars and any type of investigation in Ukraine. The Ukrainians didn’t even know at the time of the call that aid had been held and most importantly, they took no action. They never started an investigation, they never promised to start an investigation, they never announced an investigation, they took no action to get the aid released.

These four facts will never change, no matter how long Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff talk (Fox News. Rep).

Finally, as indicated, in the course of this day, Jerry Nadler called Pat Philbin a liar, and Trump said, These people are all crazy. Needless to say, the feelings were a bit hot.

Post Day One Reports

The next morning, Mike Lee (R. UT) was on FNC. He said the House Managers mispronounced Pat Cipollone’s last name dozens of times. He also said the Dems were rude and insulting.

He was asked about the idea of a witness swap. The idea being that Dems get John Bolton while the Repubs would get Hunter Biden. He said that was a rumor that he didn’t see happening, as the charges were flawed. As such, there was no need for new witnesses.

He closed by saying a basic rule of trying a case is You don’t insult the jury or the judge; but here, they did both.

A local (to me in Pittsburgh, PA) legal scholar, Ken Gormley, president of Duquesne University, attended this day of the trial. He stated:

And Sen. (Ted) Cruz was sitting in the presiding chair and just looked bored, Gormley said. "There was no spirit of bipartisanship whatsoever. Everyone seemed to have made up their minds what path they were going down.

The legal scholar had previously suggested an alternative to impeachment that would have included a congressional censure of the president’s actions with regard to withholding funds to Ukraine and bipartisan legislation specifically prohibiting any president from asking a foreign power to meddle in U.S. elections in the future.

Republicans weren’t game and Gormley said his suggestion didn’t earn him any points with congressional Democrats. Nonetheless, Pennsylvania’s senior U.S. senator, Democrat Bob Casey, offered him a coveted ticket for the opening of the Senate impeachment trial (Trib. Duquesne).

I predicted in Volume Two the Senators would get bored, and that has proven to be the case. By the second day of the trial, the following happened:

To help senators pass the time, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr of North Carolina, passed out lunch favors of fidget spinners, stress balls and other toys (Trib. ‘Bogus’).

I also heard a report that Bernie Sanders (D. VT) was seen repeatedly rearranging the materials on his desk and even reading the wrapper of his Life Savers. Meanwhile, others were seen falling asleep and passing notes, like they were back in grade school. One female Senator was even seen reading a book. She defended it by saying it contained a chapter on obstruction, so it was relevant to the proceedings.

Later, it was reported that Hershey’s sent 700 pounds of chocolate to the Senate to replenish their supply of candy. I guess the Senators feel they need a sugar rush to stay awake during these boring proceedings.

In any case, back to my local legal scholar and his comment about censure. I also mentioned that before, and if the Dems were smart, they would have gone that route. It might have gotten some Repub support and would have prevented the President from ever being able to mount a defense, other than on Twitter. Most of all, it would have saved all of us this national nightmare. But Dems, being pushed by their base, were too set on impeachment to even consider a viable alternative.

Moreover, remember, this impeachment is not really about removing President Trump from office. Dems knew from the start that was highly unlikely to occur. Instead, this impeachment is about the 2020 election, both about tarnishing Trump in the minds of votes and Repub Senators in swing districts.

The latter was confirmed when Jerry Nadler declared that any Senator who votes to not allow witnesses was involved in a cover-up. That statement was in part what led to the dust up in the wee hours of the first day. It particularly upset Republican Senator Susan Collins. She knows she is in a particularly vulnerable spot with being from the very blue state of Maine.

But all Repub Senators from blue or purple states know how they vote will affect their reelection campaigns, as do Dems. That is why Dems are pushing so hard for a vote about additional witnesses and documents. If they were really concerned about getting to the truth as they claim, they would have pursued those witnesses and documents in the House. But that would not have enabled them to tarnish Repub Senators by claiming they are involved in a cover-up.

Other Developments

Meanwhile, President Trump was finishing up his time in Davos, Switzerland for the economic summit. Shortly before leaving, he gave an impromptu press conference. FNC reported Trump mainly touted his economic successes. But when asked about the dust up at the Senate Trial, he said Jerry Nadler is a sleazebag.

FNC reporter John Roberts (no relation to the Chief Justice) asked Trump about allowing John Bolton to testify. Trump said he would love for him to testify. However, there are national security problems. Trump said, He knows some of my thoughts, he knows what I think about leaders. The concern is Bolton could mention a negative thing he (Trump) had said about another world leader, and that would cause problems in their relationship.

Trump also said Bolton, Did not leave on the best of terms. He said, That was due to me, not him. But still, Trump expressed concerns about what Bolton might say for that reason.

Trump has also said previously that he didn’t want to set the precedent of presidential advisors having to testify. That would hinder the President’s ability to confide in his advisors in the future.

That is a legitimate concern. The President should be able to be candid with his own advisors and not have to be concerned that what he says in private to them could be used against him in an impeachment trial.

That is important, as the Bible declares the importance of having many counselors:

Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety (Prov 11:14; NKJV).

Without counsel, plans go awry, But in the multitude of counselors they are established. (Prov 15:22; NKJV)

However, it might be difficult for Trump to prevent at least John Bolton from testifying by evoking executive privilege:

Legal experts said Trump’s executive privilege claim would be weak….

Legal experts said the Senate’s right to evidence is particularly strong when it is considering whether to remove a president as opposed to conducting routine executive branch oversight….

A claim by Trump that executive privilege applies to Bolton could be ruled upon by Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, [legal scholar] Kent said. Senate rules allow Roberts, who has typically avoided perceived partisanship, to instead let the senators decide, Kent added….

Once the majority of senators have said they want to hear from Bolton, going to court is just going to rub senators the wrong way (Reuters. Trump).

In any case, back to Trump’s impromptu presser. In a surprise comment, Trump said, I would love to be in the front row at the Senate trial. But his lawyers, Pat and Jay, wouldn’t like that at all.

Before leaving Davos, the following happened:

The president met with several dozen business executives Wednesday morning [1/22/20] for a closed-door breakfast. Mr. Trump arrived late to the event. During his remarks to the executives, he touted the economy, trumpeting low unemployment and wage gains. He pointed to tax cuts, deregulation and the trade deal as things he had delivered to the corporate sector, according to a person familiar with the meeting. The president also told the executives that his polling numbers looked better than ever (WSJ. Trump).

In another development, a Tweet by American Oversight stated:

Two minutes before midnight, OMB released 192 pages of Ukraine-related records to American Oversight, including emails that have not been previously released. Jan 22, 2020.

This release was in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by American Oversight. I downloaded the file, and it is 193 pages. But the documents are heavily redacted.

Team Trump claim the documents are irrelevant, while American Oversight claims they are vital.

American Oversight’s executive director Austin Evers said in a statement, President Trump’s lawyers stood in the Senate on Tuesday arguing that documents are totally unnecessary for the impeachment trial, but these documents give lie to that entire position.

Despite the Trump Administration’s obstruction and the rhetoric at the trial, the public can now see even more evidence of the president’s corrupt scheme as it unfolded in real time. The volume of material released, and the volume of material still secreted away, only highlights how much the administration has withheld from the House, the Senate, and the American public (Axios).

But none of this would be allowed in the trial, unless the Senators voted to allow additional documents to be entered in the record.

Second Day of the Senate Trial

House Managers Present Their Case

The second day of the trial began at 1:00 pm EST on Wednesday, January 22, 2020. It was mostly once again the Schiff show, as he did most of the talking. In fact, he began before the trial even began. At 12:47 pm, he held a press conference.

In it, he declared, We want a fair trial. The House Managers should be able to call witnesses. He then specifically named John Bolton. He said that in today’s trial, We will lay out the chronology of the President’s wrongdoing."

He was asked about the idea of a witness swap, John Bolton for Hunter Biden. He said that Hunter’s testimony would be irrelevant and immaterial. He then said specifically, We won’t swap witnesses.

The presser last just five minutes. Then it was time for the trial.

The proceedings began by Justice Roberts saying Team Trump won’t request a dismissal. That idea had been floated, but it appeared it would not be pursued.

There was then the invocation at 1:04 am. In his prayer, Chaplain Black prayed that God would remind both sides there were patriots on both sides. He also quoted the second half of 1Corinthians 10:31, do all things for the glory of God.

Justice Roberts then led all of the Senators in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Sargent at Arms again repeated about everyone remaining silent. Mitch McConnel then said he had no motions. It was then on to the House Managers. Roberts told them, You have 24 hours.

Adam Schiff started the House Managers’ presentation. The CNN banner called him, the Lead Impeachment Manager.

Adam started by thanking the Senators for their patience in sitting through these long proceedings. He then gave a quote from John Hamilton that was made to George Washington. There was then more talk about the Founders. He said that though they were flawed men, they gave us the Constitution.

He then talked about their concerns about an immoral President and tried to apply that to Trump. He then presented the basic Dem talking points. He referred to the two discredited conspiracy theories the President wanted investigated. That was so Trump could cheat in the next election. He emphasized Trump only wanted an announcement of the investigations. He claimed he did not want the actual investigations.

Adam then said, Russia hacked Burisma last week. He said that was like what they did with Hillary Clinton. He then said one of the President’s conspiracy theirs was that Ukraine not Russia interfered in 2016.

He then laid out an hour-long chronology of Trump’s alleged actions. As he did, he used as strong and weighted language as possible. Thus, for instance, he called Trump’s actions a scheme and said he then tried to engage in a cover-up of them.

He mentioned various aspects of the military aid, such as night goggles, but he didn’t mention the most important aspect, the Javelins.

He claimed Trump implored Russia in 2016 to hack the Democrat server. They did hours later. He then played the clip of Trump’s Hey Russia, if you are listening joke during one of his speeches.

Schiff then claimed they will present extensive and overwhelming evidence of the President’s guilt. But he then appealed for additional witnesses and documents.

He said to the Senators, You will long to return to the work of the Senate. But he implored them that this was important, so they needed to pay attention. He then gave more talk about the Founders and the Constitutional framework of our government. He then gave an overview of the two articles of impeachment.

He said that everyone was in the loop and that, You cannot dispute the facts. He gave an overview of the testimony of the witnesses in the House. He emphasized that Trump’s scheme was not just about a phone call.

But he closed with talk about the call. He said Zelensky was prepared for it. He said the transcript contained a missing reference to Burisma.

Recess:

Schiff ended his presentation at 3:28 am, so he spoke for almost 2-1/2 hours. There was then a recess until 3:50 am. During it, the CNN pundits said Schiff presented a very strong case and that it was damning of the President’s actions.

Jay Sekulow then held a very short presser. He said Schiff spoke for 2-1/2 hours, plus there was the 11 hours yesterday. He said that showed the Dems have plenty of information, so they don’t need more. Meaning, they don’t need to call more witnesses or for more documents.

He said Team Trump will rebut what Schiff said. He said Schiff "mentioned quid pro quo, but it is not in articles. Later, a CNN pundit said that claim was a lie." She said the words quid pro quo were not in the articles but they describe that Trump did this for that, so it really was in them.

CNN then interviewed Senator Amy Klobuchar (D. MN). She said, No witnesses. No documents. No justice. The CNN pundit said there were rumors that the Senators were not staying in the room for the presentation, especially Republicans. But Amy rebuked that idea. She said the Senators were only leaving for bathroom or coffee breaks. But otherwise, 95% were in the chamber.

At this time, Amy was still in the race to be the Dem nominee for President. The CNN pundit asked if she would rather be in Iowa. Amy said that her daughter was there for her.

It was then back to the CNN pundits. They said Schiff’s presentation was dazzling. One said, it was the second best lawyer presentation he had ever heard, and that it was very convincing. The bias of the CNN talking heads was very obvious

Schumer now spoke. He said it was an amazing 2-1/2 hours. He said there was public pressure for a fair trial. He claimed that despite Repubs’ assurance, they won’t be voting on witnesses later. He further claimed they never answered why there should be no witnesses and documents. He also said there would be no witnesses swap.

The trial resumed at 3:56 pm with Jerry Nadler now doing the presentation. He started by claiming, The facts are not in dispute. He then repeated the very much disputed Dem talking points.

He then mostly talked about Marie Yovanovitch. He said she was in the way, so Rudy Giuliani began his smear campaign to get rid of her. He then described Rudy’s activities in Ukraine. In his closing, he repeated the famous line from the Nixon impeachment, What did the President know, and when did he know it?

It was now Sylvia Garcia’s turn. She talked about the first phone call between Trump and Zelensky on April 26, 2019. She then talked about the significance of a White House meeting and discussed the actions of Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas.

Jason Crow now took his turn. He asked why Americans should care about Ukraine. He said because they are on the front lines with Russia. He then repeated the domino theory I described in Volume One.

He said 87 Senators voted for the military aid for Ukraine. He said that showed they understood the importance of the aid. But then the hold came out of the blue. He then provided details about the hold.

He claimed Ukrainians knew of the aid hold in late July. He said Ukrainians are dying. He played a clip from Taylor and said, Taylor like me is a combat veteran. As such, we are concerned about the soldiers on the battlefield. But Trump was only concerned about himself.

Val Demings now spoke. She talked more about the importance of a White House meeting. She claimed it never was scheduled.

She then played a video of Sondland asking, "Was there a quid pro quo? Yes." She mentioned about other witnesses and what they said about a White House meeting. She also talked about Rudy’s activities.

She then said, As a former chief of police, I can understand Bolton’s drug deal comment. She claimed Rudy was expressing the desires of the President.

She said Bolton didn’t want the call with Zelensky, as he was afraid of what the President would say. She said she wants to ask him what he was afraid of, if or when he appears before this body.

Hakeem Jeffries spoke next. He started with a George Washington quote. He said the Constitution tells us no one is above the law. He spoke more about Trump’s belief in a 2016 interference conspiracy.

He then tried to bring Mueller’s testimony into it. But he misrepresented Mueller’s conclusion. He tried to make it sound like Mueller found that Trump colluded which Russia, which he did not.

He then said Marie Yovanovitch felt threatened. At that point, a heckler interrupted the proceedings. After the person was escorted out of the chamber, it seemed like Hakeem lost his train of thought, as it didn’t seem like he finished what he was going to say about Marie.

Instead, he quoted a Scripture that Dems quoted previously, The LORD loves justice. He then claimed the original call readout omitted key elements. He gave a list of such omissions. To comment, I ‘m not sure what he was referring to, as the only transcript I have seen had all of the points he mentioned. But maybe he was referring a different call readout than the one that was released publicly.

He then talked about the overheard Sondland call. He said, the July 25 call was not perfect. He gave a list of reasons why he thinks that is so. He ended by saying Trump solicited foreign interference for 2020.

Recess:

At this point, Mitch McConnel spoke and called for a recess for dinner for 30 minutes. It was now 6:35 pm.

The CNN pundits all seemed joyful over the presentation, except for one. I was a bit surprised when he said he thought it was disjointed and would not convive anyone who was on the fence.

I think what he was referring to with the first remark is that each House Manager primarily addressed a different aspect of the House’s case. As such, they did jump around a bit from Manager to Manager, but for the most part, I thought each did a good job in presenting their weak case. That last point is probably why that pundit said their presentations would not change anyone’s mind.

The hearing resumed sometime after 7:00 pm. I’m not exactly sure when, as I recorded the rest of the evening on FNC, but it didn’t air the trial itself. But I could see Schiff speaking in the background partway through Martha MacCallum’s 7:00 show.

I’m also not sure how long it ran after that, but I do know it was predicted it would be another two hours after the trial resumed, so it was probably sometime after 9:00 pm when it ended.

News Reports:

Following are a few comments from various news sites about this day’s proceedings, followed by comments by yours truly.

We have the evidence to prove President Trump ordered the aid withheld, he did so to force Ukraine to help his re-election campaign, Schiff said during arguments on Wednesday that stretched for eight hours. We can and will prove President Trump guilty of this conduct and of obstructing the investigation into his conduct. (Reuters. Democrats).

Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, outlined what the Democrats contend was the president’s corrupt scheme to abuse his presidential power and then obstruct Congress’ investigation. He then called on senators not to be cynical about politics, but to draw on the intent of the nation’s Founding Fathers who provided the remedy of impeachment.

Over the coming days, we will present to you—and to the American people—the extensive evidence collected during the House’s impeachment inquiry into the president’s abuse of power, said Schiff standing before the Senate. You will hear their testimony at the same time as the American people. That is, if you will allow it (Trib. Democrats).

Over the coming days, you will hear remarkably consistent evidence of President Trump’s corrupt scheme and coverup, Mr. Schiff (D., Calif.) said, standing at a lectern on the Senate floor. There is no serious dispute about the facts underlying the president’s conduct (WSJ. Democrats).

Dems continually make the claim, There is no serious dispute about the facts. But by the facts they mean that Trump abused the power of his office to pressure a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival. The problem is, there is very much dispute about just about every word in that sentence. But Dems think if they repeat it often enough, people will believe it is true.

I will present what I believe is the truth in this regard in Chapter Three. But here, I will continue with Day Two of the Senate Trial.

House managers laid out the chronology of the Democrats’ case, playing video clips of administration officials who testified in the House investigation about the president’s push for investigations and the hold on nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. The aid later was released after bipartisan pressure in Congress (WSJ. Democrats).

One pundit commented that the reason Nancy Pelosi withheld the articles for 33 days was so that the House Manager would have time to get all of their video clips and other visual aids ready. There is some truth to that, as they did use a lot of visual aids. I’m not faulting them for that per se, as visual aids are very helpful. But what I will take them to task for is taking the statements of witnesses out of context.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) again implored Republicans late Wednesday to support the introduction of new evidence, offering several examples of specific records and documents that would help the Senate better make a decision about whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office (Senators).

Schiff and Nadler wasted much of their time asking again and again for new witnesses and documents, while at the same time saying they had an overwhelming case against the President. I’ve already pointed out the contradiction in those two lines of thought.

But here, I will say, it has already been established that the question of additional witnesses and documents will be address in phase four. As such, I don’t understand why the House Managers continue to waste their time on that point now. But I guess they know, even with all of the videos and charts, they do not have enough evidence to fill their 24 hours, so they have to do so somehow.

Other Schiff Lines:

It will be worth discussing a few lines from Schiff that conservative media has been railing about. The first is Schiff quoting Trump as saying, Article II means I can do anything I want to. Schiff is saying this is Trump claiming the absolute authority of a king. This line was often repeated throughout the House impeachment proceedings.

However, Louie Gohmert (R. TX) emphatically declared during the HJC Impeachment Evidence Hearing:

It is also outrageous to say the I can do anything I want statement meant Trump wants to be king when they know the context was about firing Mueller. A king is what Obama did with immigration. I got a pen and a phone and he makes new law. That is more like a monarchy. Not saying I can fire a special prosecutor.

This is absolutely true. The House Managers can repeat this line as many times as they want, but it will not change that original context. Trump was talking about his right as head of the Executive Branch to fire the Special Counselor Robert Mueller. In no way was he claiming the absolute authority of a king. But Schiff is following the dictum that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.

The next line is, We need to fight Russia there, so we don’t have to fight them here.

This goes back to the domino theory of Soviet aggression I discussed in Volume One. As I carefully explained, even if Russia were to annex all of Ukraine, there would still be zero chance of Russia ever invading the United States. But Schiff seems to think fearmonger will override people’s sensibilities.

Then is Schiff saying, The President’s misconduct cannot be decided at the voting box because we cannot be sure the vote will be fairly won. This is the Dems setting themselves to not accept the results of the 2020 election, which they know Trump will win, just as they have never accepted the results of the 2016 election.

But to the point here, Trump was not trying to cheat for 2020 as Schiff and the Dems are claiming. They have not produced one shred of firsthand evidence that 2020 was ever on his mind in asking for the investigations in Ukraine. He was looking backward to 2016 and the Obama/ Biden administration, not forward to 2020. It is up to the House Managers to prove otherwise, which they have not done.

Schiff then jumped on one of Trump’s lawyers saying, We got materials they don’t. Schiff said this was a reference to the documents they had subpoenaed but which Trump never turned over. No. This is just Team Trump doing their job, which the House Managers didn’t do.

However, it doesn’t appear like all of Schiff’s pontificating is having any effect on Repubs in the Senate:

I didn’t hear anything new, at all, said Republican Senator John Barrasso. He repeated Republican criticism that Democrats are pursuing a politically-driven effort to oust Trump from office before the November presidential election (Reuters. Democrats).

Third Day of the Senate Trial

House Managers Present Their Case

The third day of the Senate trial began at 1:00 pm EST on Thursday, January 23, 2020. Before it started, CNN reported that the day before, Trump has tweeted or retweeted 142 times. That was a new record for him. That was probably because Trump was on his way back from Davos, so he was probably bored on Air Force One.

In any case, Day Three began at 1:02 pm. As with the first two days, it began with an invocation by Chaplain Black. In it, he said, Listening is more than hearing and that empathy can unite people. He also prayed that the Senators would make a decision that will bring glory to God.

Justice Roberts again led the Senators in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Sergeant at Arms again warned the Senators to remain quiet at the risk of imprisonment.

Mitch McConnell then spoke and said the pattern for today would be similar to yesterday. Justice Roberts indicated that the House Managers had 16 hours and 42 minutes left for their presentation.

Adam Schiff began for the House Managers. He again thanked the Senators. He said it was rare for Senators to sit quietly to listen to House members. But then joked that it helped that the Sergeant at Arms threatened them with imprisonment if they did not.

But now he got serious. He said that today he would present the facts in a new light. He overviewed the trial schedule, with its four stages. He then said, Then the trial will begin. By that he meant, the real trial would not begin until they began to get new witnesses.

Jerry Nadler then spoke. He said this third day of the trial is a solemn occasion. He said, the articles are overwhelming. He followed that up with Dem talking points. He said the President withheld two official acts for his desired investigations. No president has abused his power in this manner. He then gave the Dem talking points on the second article of impeachment.

He said this is not America first, but Donald Trump first. He then played a video of Professor Gerhardt saying, If this is not impeachable, nothing is impeachable. He said Trump mistakes himself as a king.

Nadler then spent much time presenting background on the impeachment clause in the Constitution, with its roots reaching back to Great Britain’s parliament.

He then gave comparisons to Nixon’s impeachment. He quoted now DA William Barr from 2018, when he said, The President cannot be indicted since there is impeachment. He then once again took Trump’s I can do whatever I want line out of context.