D.C. Corruption in the Senate Chamber

What are we talking about? This is supposed to be a summary of the Impeachment Trial from the previous day?

Folks, after watching the Q & A for two days, the Thursday answers to dozens of questions were fueled directly by corruption — corruption on the part of House Manager and House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). In fact, for several of the questions from Senators that were directed simply to “House Managers” that Schiff chose to answer, his answers made no reference at all to answering the asked questions, rather he launched into wild allegations and conclusions based on no facts and no evidence at all.

One of the issues I have with the Q & A process is that without cross examination of witness responses, and, in this case, cross examination of answers by BOTH Democrats and Republicans, finding truth in answers is unrealistic. There’s NO way this method has or will ever result in reliable answers. Example: “It is uncontroverted that the President corruptly and illegally withheld critical aid to Ukraine while demanding the Ukrainian government investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden.”

Here’s the rub: that allegation is NOT uncontroverted. In fact, the exact opposite is true. From the beginning, Defense Team members have consistently refuted that and other outlandish and unsubstantiated claims against the President.

But in the example above, (which actually happened when Rep. Jerrold Nadler made that statement numerous times) there was no method in this process to confront Mr. Nadler about that statement. Some will say, “Senators knew that so it really didn’t matter.” Don’t assume that: there are Senators who sit in the Chamber on both sides with pre-conceived ideas based totally on partisanship that may, when confronted with truth that would come from a cross-examination, change their minds.

The Thursday horrors in the Senate Chamber drove me to the edge of political suicide! Schiff once again dominated the process of House Managers answering questions of the Senators. In doing so, he as he is known for in every response, talked down to Senators, argued, very nastily snarled at members of the Defense Team, and, in each and every response, included vitriolic allegations against Mr. Trump that Schiff continually asserted were “uncontroverted facts.”

I learned in high school debate that when a debate opponent, in making a point or attempting to refute a point made by an opponent, argues points that had previously been made and debated did so because they had no relevant response  with supporting evidence which they can use.

Adam Schiff and all the other House Managers could have presented their entire case during the second day of this trial from start to finish and have been done with it. They called and questioned eighteen witnesses before their committee. The written testimonies of seventeen of those witnesses were released and are included in the official House impeachment record provided to the Senate. Why wasn’t the eighteenth testimony provided to the world? We don’t know for certain, but it has been leaked that the testimony of the Inspector General that was not included contained information that Adam Schiff had direct contact with the whistleblower which Schiff has under oath denied.

House Managers stated on Day One their case included “complete and undisputed evidence that absolutely proved President Trump’s guilt for Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power.” They maintained that was all they needed.

But wait: they’ve spent a week demanding they need for the Senate to call more witnesses!

It’s simple to deduce why they do so: their case does NOT contain “complete and undisputed evidence that absolutely proves President Trump’s guilt.” In fact, ALL allegations of Trump impeachment actions have NOT been proven all.

Today is the day in which the Senate will hear the case for Senators to subpoena new witnesses and other evidence from the Trump Administration. It will take a simple majority of the Senate — 51 — in a vote expected to occur sometime in the afternoon for that process to be initiated.

If it does, this trial will certainly last at least through February and into March, maybe even April. 

But that’s not the travesty of this: by longstanding rules of the Senate, the Senate MUST remain in session with one and only one agenda item — Impeachment — until all of the impeachment issues are resolved. And they can conduct NO other business about any other issue during that time other than impeachment.

The Corruption Common Denominator: Ukraine

What is the 900 pound gorilla in the Senate Chamber? It’s the nation of Ukraine. In fact, all the claims made against President Trump when he as President in a phone call with the new Ukraine President mentioned, “Do US a favor.” The favor the President referenced was regarding an closed Ukrainian corruption investigation of a Ukrainian company Burisma which had the son of Joe Biden on its board of directors. Reasonable people — especially Americans — would not  assume that an American who had no energy business experience, no business management experience, and no experience of any kind in the nation of Ukraine would be asked to serve on the board of a large natural gas company in Ukraine. And certainly, those Americans would ask questions about that American earning $83,000 a month for doing nothing but serving on a board. Records show that he participated in only two official company events during his board tenure for which he was paid $1 million per year. What could be the reason for Burisma offering that position to Hunter Biden? When he was asked in an interview if he was added to the Burisma board and paid that amount of money because his father was the Vice President of the U.S. he replied, “Probably so.”

That investigation was initiated and conducted by the federal prosecutor of the country of Ukraine. He began a corruption investigation into all things Burisma. SubsequentLy, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden’s father, visited Ukraine in his official U.S. capacity. During his visit with the now “former” Ukraine president, VP Biden told the Ukraine president that if he did NOT fire the federal prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden, (and do so within six hours) the U.S. on Biden’s order would refuse to pay to Ukraine almost $ Billion in loan guarantees by the U.S. Ukraine took actions and fired that prosecutor.

When Ukraine’s new president took office, Mr. Trump had the above mentioned phone call — the call that initiated this entire impeachment debacle. Adam Schiff and other Democrats claim President Trump attempted to blackmail Ukraine to hold foreign aid if they did not reopen that investigation terminated by the former Ukrainian president.

Here’s the rub: there are two reasons why President Trump would have been in error if he did NOT pursue that matter in Ukraine. One is the Congressional bill that authorized the Ukrainian aid mandated that the President make certain that those funds would NOT be used for corrupt purposes by Ukraine before it was released to Ukraine. Secondly, President Bill Clinton signed a U.S.-Ukraine mutual corruption “treaty” that it was ratified by Congress. The treaty states that both countries will work together to find, reveal, and eliminate any corruption found in either country related to the other country. If President Trump had simply released that money without comfort the funds would be used for the expressed purpose of the release Adam Schiff would be the first member of Congress who wanted President Trump impeached for allowing Ukraine corruption to continue using American dollars. It wouldn’t surprise me in that case if Schiff did not claim President Trump had cut a deal to get some of that money personally!

This is how ridiculous this is.

How many of you knew anything about Ukraine before this all started? Most don’t even know where Ukraine is on a map. But now Americans hear the word “Ukraine” dozens of time a day because of these nonstop allegations of Trump corruption with Ukraine. Have you ever wondered what the attraction to Ukraine for American politicians seems to be? In fact, most of the “current” conversations about D.C. corruption contain the name “Ukraine.” Why do you think that is?

Corruption’s World Headquarters: Ukraine

In the U.S., very little has been known about Ukraine until this most recent news activity about the country that has accompanied an uncountable number of stories covering President Trump, Joe and Hunter Biden, Rudy Giuliana, Paul Manaforte, and the President’s impeachment trial.

Ukraine is and has been one of the World’s most corrupt countries for quite a while. In the highly reliable Corruption Perception Index created and released annually by Transparency International, Ukraine ranked 148th. That’s only slightly above Russia, Belarus, The Congo, Nigeria, and Haiti. That’s not too good a position to hold.

Remember Paul Manaforte? He was paid a reported $65 million by Ukraine oligarchs over a decade to assist “dirty” politicians in the cleanup of their reputations sufficient to be elected to office or some to be re-elected, including the former President. In keeping with his clients’ reputation and underhanded methods of taking care of their money, Manaforte then laundered that money through a series of companies in various countries. He pled guilty for doing so during the Mueller Investigation.

Manaforte’s actions were just a drop in the bucket of Ukrainian corruption. And that may explain the concentration by so many of today’s Washington power brokers, including members of some of the most famous and well known American families.

Here’s a report from One America News about Paul Pelosi Jr.’s deep relationships within the nation of Ukraine:

Ukraine and Joe and Hunter Biden; Ukraine and Nancy and Paul Pelosi; Ukraine and former Secretary of State John Kerry and stepson Christoper Heinz: does any of this ring a bell for you?

In the South, there’s an old saying: “If it quacks and waddles it’s always a duck.” By that saying, Ukraine’s quacking along with Pelosi, Biden, and Heinz. Who else is wrapped up in Ukraine? Chances are with the flood of easy money flowing from Ukraine amid the lust for political connections at the highest levels in the U.S., there are more corrupt D.C. heavyweights in the midst of Ukraine corruption.


As today’s part of our Obama era corruption we promised a report from a Eurasia news source provided to us. We have it, we want you to have it, and we’ll give it to you. However, the Thursday chaos on Capitol Hill on impeachment along with the continued crescendo surrounding Impeachment and Ukraine, we wanted to bring you this Paul Pelosi story today.

What happens today in the Impeachment Trial? As of late Thursday evening, it is apparent that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has decided to vote against extending the impeachment trial by calling for additional witnesses. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) indicated he would like to hear testimony from former National Security Adviser John Bolton. It’s assumed he will vote for additional witnesses. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) indicated she will vote for additional witnesses. Those three along with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)  are the moderate Republicans who would be the easiest for Democrats to sway.

There are 53 GOP Senators and 47 Democrats. A vote to call additional witnesses requires a simple majority, or 51. With Collins and Romney indicating a vote FOR witnesses and Alexander to NOT call witnesses, the count stands at 51-49. If Murkowski votes with Democrats, it would be a 50-50 tie. It is likely that Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts would NOT vote to break such a tie, so the count would end in a tie. That would mean the motion to call new witnesses would NOT pass.

It is very possible several other right-leaning Democrats will vote against calling witnesses. That would only strengthen the vote count for Republicans. In either case, today’s Senate trial matters will be highly controversial, extremely animated, and historically important.

We have our eyes and ears on Washington. Stay close: Saturday we will have all the Friday impeachment news for you, plus we’ll look ahead.

And don’t forget, we’ll have that lengthy Ukrainian interview we were secretly sent that exposes the Bidens.

Impeachment: “Noise, Noise, Noise!”

Wednesday was a unique day in the Senate Impeachment Trial. It was Day One of the two days allotted for Senators to ask questions (via written message read by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts). That ‘s precisely what happened: the first question came for the President’s Defense Team and then alternated for the remainder of the day’s session.

Let me be clear: there was NO new information given — certainly no further evidence. However, the day was clarifying for many in that “some” questions that, when answered, cleared up some of the craziness that was thrown out mainly by the House Managers during their portions of the trial. That is NOT a partisan allegation on my part, just the objective observation of one who has endured almost all of this trial to filter out facts. (We’ll wait until our trial final summary to detail some of the “craziness” referenced above)

Admittedly, there were several critical Q & A’s that clarified some severe allegations which though made over and over against President Trump and answered by his Defense Team, House Managers continued to beat the same drums. Their continuation to do this seemed a bit dismissive to the 100 Senators in the room, as if they are not capable of hearing and concluding for themselves.

In place of usual bullet points, let’s take a look at a few of the most important happenings outside of questions and answers, then a look at a few questions and answers that have drawn attention.

Plans For Calling Witnesses. First, Sen. Chris Van Hollen announced plans to introduce a motion to require the chief justice to subpoena documents and witnesses if he determines they are relevant to the impeachment articles, and to exercise his authority to rule on evidence issues like an executive privilege.

“My motion ensures the chief justice will serve the same role as a judge in any trial across our country — to allow the Senate access to the facts they need to get to the truth,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement.

The Whistleblower’s Job. Republican Sens. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Jerry Moran asked House managers if the White House whistleblower ever worked with former Vice President Joe Biden.

Lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff fielded the question, using his five minutes to defend himself and his staff’s handling of the whistleblower’s complaint. Schiff said he had never met the whistleblower and does not know the whistleblower’s identity. He did not directly address the question regarding Biden and the whistleblower.

The hold on Ukraine aid revealed when and its purpose.  Sen. Mitt Romney (R., Utah) asked a question that many Democrats also want answered: “On what specific date did President Trump first order the hold on security assistance to Ukraine, and did he explain the reason at that time?”

White House lawyer Pat Philbin replied: “I don’t think that there is evidence in the record of a specific date, the specific date.” He said testimony indicates that Office of Management and Budget officials were aware of a hold as of July 3, 2019. Records indicate multiple conversations as far back as 2018 between the President and others about concerns of corruption in the Ukrainian government. (Long before Biden alleged corruption was discussed)

Q & A’s of Note: January 29, 2020

The most outstanding Q & A of the day came in answer to two different questions, one from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and one from Sen. Bob Melendez (D-NJ) both addressed to Trump’s Defense Team.

Cruz asked whether it mattered, in legal terms, if there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. In response, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the lead manager, painted a hypothetical scenario in which President Obama asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to investigate his political rival in 2012, Mitt Romney.

“See how you feel about this scenario: President Obama says on an open mic to Medvedev…’ I know you don’t want to use this because they’re killing your people. I want you to do an investigation of Mitt Romney, and I want you to announce that you found dirt on Mitt Romney. If you’re willing to do that, quid pro quo, I won’t give Ukraine the money they need to fight you on the front line.’ Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct?”

The irony that set this exchange as the best of the day came with a response to Schiff’s theoretical topic by Defense Team in a later answer to a question by Jay Sekulow. I’ll paraphrase Sekulow’s answer:

“Senators, we don’t need a ‘hypothetical’ scenario for this story. We have an actual example of it. President Obama’s FBI accepted ‘unverified and salacious’ information in the form of the Steele Dossier from a former FBI informant later identified as an associate of numerous Russian politicians. The FBI took that dossier that FBI Director James Comey had personally stated to President Trump shortly after he was elected was ‘unverified and salacious’ to the FISA Court to use as the basis for multiple FISA warrants to allow the FBI to surveil Trump Campaign associates.’

A bit later, it was revealed that Christopher Steele had been fired from the FBI for press leaks and that the dossier which relied on information from Russian operatives had been paid for by the Clinton Campaign and the Democrat National Committee.”

But it got better later. When Sen. Menendez sent his question forward, it too was answered by Jay Sekulow. The question was how long would the Impeachment Trial be drawn out if the Senate approves the calling of additional witnesses and documents in the trial. Sekulow responded that “the trial if witnesses are called will last weeks and even months more.”

Adam Schiff then piped up from his chair and said, “Give us witnesses, and you can have whatever you want.” Sekulow quickly responded and said, “You’ll give us whatever we want?” Schiff: “Witnesses.” Sekulow jumped on that and replied, “We want Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, because of his interactions with the whistleblower and we want the whistleblower and anyone on your staff that interacted with the whistleblower.” 

Schiff quickly said “We’re not calling the Bidens or the whistleblower.” Sekulow quipped, “Then we won’t have witnesses,” and walked back to his chair.

Those interactions are priceless! And, I promise, they’ll be memorialized and indexed in history under “The Greatest Senate Impeachment Trial Confrontations” for our great-grandchildren to see — especially under the subtopic titled “Noise, Noise, Noise!”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Chief Justice John Roberts got into a bit of a tiff Wednesday. Sen. Paul asked a question (in written form sent to the Chief Justice who reads each question out loud) in which he requested the name of the whistleblower. The Chief Justice declined to allow the name of the whistleblower to be given publicly. Paul intends to “push the issue” during Thursday’s Q & A session in the Senate chamber.


Before we present today’s “Obama Corruption Story” of the day, please know this: Thursday’s impeachment trial agenda is the second day of questioning. It is slated to last up to eight hours though I doubt it will take that long.

It remains to be seen what will happen after Thursday’s Q & A. The subject of calling additional witnesses will most likely consume the Friday agenda.

I earlier on Wednesday made a bold prediction, a prediction based on little more than my listening and watching far too many hours of this sham than I wanted, but felt compelled to do so and drawing educated conclusions. My prediction is two-fold: There will be NO witnesses called before the Senate, and President Trump will be acquitted. Oh, one more thing: I think Nancy Pelosi will resign as House Speaker!


Today’s Obama era corruption story is the first part of what will be several looking into former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter. We include the story link below for you to download.

Many know the investigative journalist John Solomon. He is one of the most respected political journalists in the U.S. today. Here is his timeline on the interactions that are applicable in this discussion of Joe Biden and Ukraine. You will certainly be shocked when you see the exhaustive and documented evidence presented in the story titled “The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats and their media allies don’t want America to see.”


NOTE: On Friday, our corruption story will be another Biden story. It comes from a non-partisan, non-government, and independent news source that concentrates on investigatory information regarding Eurasian government corruption. This was sent to TruthNewsNetwork, and I don’t believe any other U.S. source, but I may be wrong. It is an interview with a person named in the interview that participated directly in the Biden-Ukraine activities. Don’t miss it!

Impeachment Trial Debate: Final Day For Defense

Tuesday, January 28, was scheduled to be the final day for the President’s Defense Team to give the nation their defense of their client, who is facing two charges: Obstruction of Congress, and Abuse of Power.

Most will say the President’s team has blown away the hollow claims made by House managers with responsive facts presented that, in many cases, used video which the House managers used themselves. It seems that in numerous of such instances, House managers presented just snippets of those videos that, if allowed to play in full contained further testimony that refuted Democrats’ claims.

How did the day go? What were the outcomes of the Defense Team’s findings? What’s next?

Tuesday: the Trial

The final day of the Defense Team presentation of the case for the President included recaps of the salient points of evidence presented in the first two days. But when the case summary was detailed, the Team during their bullet-point presentation drove home several facts: neither of the two Articles of Impeachment is based on Constitutional requirements. All of the evidence presented by the House managers was incomplete, inconsistent with provisions for impeachment, and grossly misrepresented the facts. Once again, the Defense Team masterfully laced segments of the actual videos the House managers used to prove just how Dems manipulated presentation of their case twisting things said to “sell” their case. The problem is: when the evidence presented was put in context, not a single segment supported the Prosecution’s case.

But one thing has happened in the last several days that has thrown a wrench into the impeachment trial: John Bolton. The fired National Security Adviser submitted an advance copy of this book to the White House to determine if any and which parts of the book cannot be released due to their containing classified information. As usual, a “source” leaked to the New York Times that Bolton states in the book that President Trump told Bolton he DID tie the release of Ukrainian aid to the public announcement by President Zelensky of the resumption of the Ukraine investigation into the Bidens.

Honestly, the Bolton move was not surprising to me. John Bolton has throughout his professional career been a lightning rod for controversy. He has never been well thought of by many leaders of several foreign companies. And many Democrats dislike his foreign policy tendencies to move very quickly in any controversy with a foreign government from diplomacy to military actions.

No doubt, John Bolton felt jilted by President Trump — he was fired. He has shown a pretty vicious temper at times in his past. And as a jilted security adviser to the President, he certainly was embarrassed by being sent packing. That opened the door for payback.

But the Bolton book story and its sudden “leak” to the New York Times is now becoming not such a big mystery. The Buffalo Chronicle released this story about Bolton’s “payback” threats when fired:

In the hours after National Security Advisor John Bolton was fired by President Donald Trump on September 10th, he immediately began calling longtime political operatives in Washington, DC, sources tell The Chronicle.  Many of those calls were made to Democrats and many of them in the national security establishment.

One of those contacts was the intelligence agency whistleblower who filed the now-famous complaint pertaining to the President’s call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, that is now the subject of intense congressional scrutiny.  That complaint was filed only weeks before, on August 12th. The source alleges that the whistleblower was given the information that comprises the contents of his complaint from Bolton himself, which if true would constitute an extraordinary breach of national security and an indictable offense punishable by imprisonment.

“It’s go time,” he began those conversations, multiple sources tell The Chronicle, as if to suggest that Bolton’s patience with the President had worn thin.

The source of the Chronicle’s story made it clear that Bolton was definitely angry at President Trump. But there’s more than just this. Their story continues:

While on the phone with one former government official who currently works on K Street, Bolton admitted that he was furious with the President, whom he lambasted with obscenities for more than five minutes.  The President would learn his lesson, he told the lobbyist, who chalked it up to a disgruntled employee venting over his unexpected termination.

But now, he fears that Bolton is organizing a coup d’etat to oust President Trump from office.  He cites Bolton’s contacts with journalists at major media outlets. Bolton has aggressively pushed for a military strike against Iran, putting him at odds with the President, who opposes unnecessary large-scale military interventions.  In the days prior to his termination, he was engaged in a heated battled inside the White House over the administration’s response to Iran’s attack on Saudi oil infrastructure earlier this month.

Oh, there’s another twist in this story: Lt. Alexander Vindman — the only witness who testified before the House Judiciary Committee — works for the National Security Council  in the White House. His twin brother works in the same place. But THAT Vindman brother is tasked to examine ALL the materials submitted to the NSC prior to being published.It is unknown now if Vindman “the twin” is the source of which the Times confirmed gave them the segment of the Bolton book.


This brought the impeachment process to a screeching whoa. Sen. Mitch McConnell was said to have made the comment Tuesday that after the Bolton story, Republicans now do not have the votes to stop a push for witnesses before the Senate. That means that apparently at least those four moderate Republicans who were waffling were pushed over the line by the Bolton story.

If this happens, God only knows how this will turn. Today, the trial agenda is for questions from Senators submitted to Chief Justice Roberts. He then will determine the process of handling the Q & A. It is assumed that later in the week, an intense debate will be initiated to determine a witness process acceptable to at least fifty-one Senators. If it is decided first to call witnesses and secondly the process for and who will be called to testify, the timeline will be determined also.

Do you know what the nightmare in all this will be? This process could continue for months! How so? The Democrats have made it clear they want testimony from Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton at least. Republicans certainly want to hear from Hunter Biden, also Joe, the Whistleblower, and maybe even Rep. Adam Schiff because in his handling of the Whistleblower, he became a “fact witness.”

It is likely that President Trump will exert executive privilege to block the testimony of at least John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney for the reason of National Security confidentiality. If that happens, the Senate will be forced to file an appeal with the D.C. District Court to rule on the executive privilege claim. If that court rules against the President, he will appeal it. It is certain it will make its way to the Supreme Court for an emergency review. Who knows what will happen from there.

One of the ironies of this entire mess was shown to be unconstitutional. Alan Dershowitz showed in a deliberate explanation with explicit examples that even “if” Bolton’s book says what The Times reported, “if” what Bolton did say it, and “if” Bolton’s word is taken as truth, President Trump doing that is not Constitutionally an impeachable offense. 

Maybe today some of this cloud will be cleared away. But I doubt it. If we go to the witness process, it is almost certain we will be in this impeachment trial until March at least.

Stay close: we’re looking behind bushes for the facts and will share them as we find them.


Even in the impeachment trial craziness, we will not forego our stories of government corruption during the Obama Administration.

Yesterday we provided the first link that contained full information about the massive corruption in the mortgage banking industry under the Obama Administration. The dollars and cents of that corruption will probably never be known in full. It will probably be several trillion dollars before the dust settles. But what IS known is that tens of thousands of Americans were taken advantage of by Wall Street mortgage bankers and those in the Obama Administration who are complicit in creating this monstrous fraud, implementing it with and for those big banks, all the while ignoring the American people who were caught in this travesty.

We did not summarize in that story or even give you any up-front information before the link. That was purposeful because we want to make certain you research this corruption to some degree on your own. It will be much more meaningful that way. Today and going forward we’re going to present the Obama corruption examples with a short explanation.  But we still suggest you do some of your own research yourself.

Who is the subject of today’s Obama Administration recipient of corrupt benefits? Sen. Bernie Sanders. Here is the FOX News story which is actually a summary of an excerpt from Peter Schweizer’s new book. Feel free to go to the story by clicking the link or even check out the book itself: “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite.”

Sanders and his wife and daughter began years ago “gaming the system” for personal benefit. In the process, they garnered for themselves millions of dollars. In the offing, their greed and corrupt actions actually forced a university to close its doors in part because of the mismanagement of Bernie’s wife.

Take a look for yourself. Here’s the link to the FOX News summary story:


Senate Impeachment Trial Defense Riddles House Case

President Trump’s Defense Team’s Mike Purpura struck the perfect chord in the song “Let’s Tell the Truth” in the impeachment case on Monday. He very concisely destroyed each of the points of Article I of the House case against President Trump.

Purpura introduced NEW not previously introduced evidence that took the House Manager’s “evidence” — which had been snippets of witnesses testimonies –and gave Senators in the Chamber a first-hand look at what those witnesses said in whole.

  • POTUS Required a Biden Investigation for release of Ukraine Aid. In the cases of Ambassadors Sondland, Voker, and Yovanovitch, all three in House testimony stated that President Trump had NEVER tied any aid to Ukraine to actions of any kind required by Ukraine — certainly not an investigation into Joe or Hunter Biden.
  • POTUS Required Biden Investigation for meeting with President Trump for Ukraine legitimacy in Europe. All testimony by any of the House 18 witnesses clearly stated that while Ukraine President Zelensky wanted a White House meeting or a meeting with President Trump in Warsaw. Hurricane Dorian required Mr. Trump to remain in the U.S. However, the President met in  a highly publicized meeting at the U.N. in New York. There were no pre-conditions for that meeting.
  • President Trump’s White House Meeting Invitations. House Managers did not reveal that President Trump had invited Zelensky two times before the July call that started these latest of the impeachment cries. None of those invitations had any pre-conditions especially not a Biden investigation.
  • POTUS Withholding Ukraine Aid Threatened Ukrainian Safety. Ambassadors Volker, Sondland, and Yovanovitch all three confirmed that the fact that President Trump had much earlier provided Ukraine javelin missiles — which President Obama had refused to give to Ukraine — gave Ukraine a level of defense against any pending military action they had never had before. Javelin missiles are designed and used specifically for effective defense against Russian tank attacks. By the way, three of the members of the House managers voted against the bill to provide aid to Ukraine.
  • Rudy Giuliani Trump was “hatchet man.” Democrat House managers alleged that Rudy Giuliani’s mention in the July 25 phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky was President Trump’s notification to Zelensky that he was sending Giuliani as an official gov’t representative to meet with Zelensky gov’t members. House managers painted Giuliani as a Trump “hit-man” sent to threaten Ukraine to cave to Trump’s demands for Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The President’s Defense team on Monday revealed several emails, the contents of several phone calls, and portions of witness testimonies (that House Managers failed to reveal). it was made clear by several of those who testified that Giuliani was acting on his own and had started his Ukraine investigation months before the July 25 call was held. Ambassador Volker testified that he was contacted by Ukrainian officials more than a month after the July call with President Trump asking Volker how to reach Giuliani.
  • The hurry for the impeachment inquiry. With House managers, a host of Democrats from the House, and now at least two of the moderate Senators are recommending the call of additional witnesses in the impeachment trial. That brings to the table for consideration one question: what was the rush to get the inquiry completed? The President’s legal team on Monday took that issue to task. Think about these: the House wants the Senate to force Mick Mulvaney to testify. They want John Bolton to testify, Mike Pompeo as well. But the House constitutionally “has the sole power to impeach” a President. If the House must collect sufficient evidence to create an overwhelming case to present to the Senate, why did they not complete the process by forcing these witnesses to testify. “IF” their doing so in necessary to their impeachment case? It may be true they used that as a ploy to force the Senate to do their dirty work regarding witnesses while hoping some damning evidence would surface to help their cause. Some feel the snippets leaked from John Bolton’s upcoming book could be one tidbit of evidence. But they certainly demanded the inquiry start and end when it did. Why? In numerous news reports and interviews with Democrats, when asked what was the timing for getting articles to the Senate, several dozens of those replied, “It is critical we complete this inquiry to get to the Senate immediately.” Nancy Pelosi especially pushed for it, but then waited 28 days to forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The answer? Only one I can think of is that they had emergency Christmas plans!
  • Alan Dershowitz: “Impeachment Charges are Not Impeachable.” Dershowitz is a Democrat and did not vote for Donald Trump. He’s a Constitutional lawyer who is considered one of the foremost experts on the Constitution. Attorney Dershowitz spent an hour meticulously explaining why neither of the Articles of Impeachment reach the level of constitutional justification for impeachment. In his presentation he very carefully and clearly explained the meanings of applicable segments of impeachment law, on which fundamentals each of the two Articles are based, and the specifics of what is required to impeach a President. If you have interest, I highly suggest you on YouTube watch his presentation. If you do, you will never need to wonder what is and what is not an impeachable offense under the U.S. Constitution. Oh: both articles of impeachment fall far short of the qualifications necessary to impeach a president.


The bottom line on Day 6 of the Senate Impeachment trial is this: the President’s Defense team put one or two (maybe three) more nails in the coffin of the House managers’ impeachment case. Once more, they were concise, factual, singular, and amazingly understandable not only to the gaggle of attorneys who comprise the Senate, but to millions of Americans who were looking in. This Cajun redneck was one of those.

The icing on the cake in their presentation had to be how Alan Dershowitz dumbed-down the Constitutional requirements for presidential impeachment. He made it abundantly clear that the president may have done something wrong, something suspicious, or something surreptitious in his handling of Ukraine regarding the military aid in question. But none of those rise to the level of an impeachable offense according to the Constitution. In fact, even if President Trump made such a request of President Zelensky, it still would NOT be an impeachable offense for two reasons: there was no “pro” that came from the “quid pro.” In other words, Ukraine received their aid within the legal timeframe set in U.S. law, there was no Ukrainian announcement (as the House managers claim Trump demanded) of a restart of the corruption investigation of the Bidens.

Dershowitz put the dot on the i regarding this entire impeachment folly with this: “Not liking a president, not liking his policies, not agreeing with his methods, or disagreeing with his actions may be distasteful. His words and actions may be uncomfortable and even egregious in nature as perceived by some. But even if all of those are present, they are not impeachable offenses even if they ARE offenses.” He continued, “There is a constitutional method to remove a President when he is not liked or he is disagreed with or even if a majority feel any or all of the above. It’s called an election. The American people have the sole right to kick any President from office.”

I’ll end with this: Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) illustrated best the problem with the House of Representatives’ position and process taken and used in this impeachment process when she stated this: “He doesn’t have to break the law to be impeached. There IS no impeachment law. Congress decides the law.”

Read through this twice: Rep. Waters really believes that. If that was what was intended by our forefathers when they penned the Constitution, there would be no need for the executive branch or the judicial branch of government. There would be no “co-equal” branches of government. There would be no “rule of law.” Congress would be the sole arbiter of everything that happens in the U.S. and could float with the wind each day as the party in the majority decided all laws and who must abide by them!

That would be a state of anarchy like has never existed in any nation in World history. I doubt the founders had Maxine’s idea in mind in the eighteenth century.


As promised, we today are bringing to you details with evidence of one of the corrupt acts committed by the previous administration which cost billions of U.S. tax dollars and robbed millions of Americans under on the Obama watch.

The mortgage crash almost destroyed the economy of the U.S. and cost numerous Americans their homes. Big Wall Street banks were at the top of this horror that existed only because of their corrupt banking practices to make much money.

This story details exactly what happened, who were involved, the dollars involved and who made those dollars and lost those dollars. More importantly, you will see the ties to the Barack Obama Administration. (It’s better than a Jack Ryan spy novel)


This will be the first of these exposures of Government corruption. Get ready to read and do follow-up research. We’ll give you truth. It’s up to you to confirm!


See you tomorrow.

Impeachment Trial Day is Here: And So is Evil

Today will be another day to mark in your iCal phone calendar with a “repeat annually” pressed. It marks the first full day of a Presidential impeachment trial that a Republican President was allowed to have legal representatives appear in public on his behalf during three full years of investigation into alleged wrongdoing. The FBI investigated him before he was President. A Special Counsel studied him for 2.5 years, starting just days after his presidency began. No other President in U.S. history has endured such intense scrutiny of everything in his life all the way back to his youth as has Donald J. Trump. Those investigations include everything: school records, financial statements and tax returns, personal relationships, news coverage, business dealings, and on and on.

Compare the media’s scrutiny of Donald Trump with that of his predecessor. Today’s media have never looked into any area of Obama’s past: his youth in Malaysia and Hawaii. His high school years — there are no high school yearbook pictures available. His college records in California, Harvard, nor Columbia. No one in his graduating class at Columbia will admit to even remembering him. If he were Donald Trump, all of the above would have been printed and broadcasted for all the world to see — especially if there were any negative things in it or that the media could spin that might be negative.

So why all the animus for Mr. Trump? It certainly cannot be for his accomplishments on behalf of the nation during his presidency; we won’t even detail those. It certainly cannot be for his personality, his past business dealings, or numerous charitable actions while in private business. I have a picture of Mr. Trump as a businessman with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton at the ceremony in which he was honored as “Man of the Year” by African American leaders.

So why all the hatred for President Trump from the Left?

Answer: He’s rained on their parade!

Donald Trump was so easy-going, so likable, and so approachable the Left thought he would be an easily-used pawn. When he moved into the White House and starting his administrative actions, they realized something which petrified them all: “This guy plans to deliver all that he promised to voters in the campaign!” Politicians couldn’t allow that to happen. Their “parade” had been running for so long many had forgotten about even hiding it any longer. America was asleep and seemed to not care about how they were running the nation for personal benefit — not ours, theirs.

Remember where he came from: he knew about the government corruption that had weaved itself into the fabric of Washington and trickled down to states and cities. How did he know about those? He grew up in his father’s business and saw how dirty politics functioned. And when he achieved massive financial success, the dirty ones came after him —  not to scold him or try to steer him away from getting his hands dirty, they came after him with their hands out.

What we are watching play out in the Senate Chamber is NOT the evil of which I’m speaking. A plane shot down over Iran or missiles fired into Israel are NOT the evils. As Jesus said, the evil is “what’s in men’s hearts.” In other words, the sin we commit is always willful, and we think about it, obsess about it, and think it into existence. And in Washington, there are no single sinners — they run in packs. Let me explain:

  • The House of Representatives impeached Donald J. Trump, who is now only the third U.S. president to ever be impeached.
  • Three of the evilest politicians in my lifetime marshaled their minions to create a case against Donald Trump sufficient to satisfy their fellow Democrat House members, and con the American people in sufficient number to trick them into supporting their actions. Their problem? The G.O.P. controlled Senate.
  • Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler knew that if they used the historical presidential impeachment “template” for their plot, they could never amass enough evidence to justify impeachment. So what did they do? They rigged the system to “create” evidence, though what they deem as evidence is nothing but innuendo and opinion.
  • The FBI had failed in their hunt for dirt; Mueller found nothing either. They had to find something they could use: “Ukraine-Gate.”
  • They all knew how easy it is for American politicians to take advantage of the rampant crime in Ukraine. Their “predecessors” had created a money-pot there they knew could be evidence to find (or create) some dirt on the President. How could they get something going?
  • One of the DNC plants in the White House kept an eye on Ukraine and Ukraine’s contacts with Mr. Trump. When that phone call in July happened, Democrats found their way to create with that call an impeachable scenario. So they did. And we’re in the middle of the results of their plot.

In creating this impeachment straw man to attack the President, they had to align the stars necessary to develop a case in their favor. How to do it? Easy: the House had control of all the House committees. Schiff and Nadler shared the two that could be used more easily than others to fuel this impeachment process.

They had to have witnesses. But they didn’t want Republicans to find out any of the “evidence” these witnesses had. How could they do that?

They first had closed-door hearings that could be attended by Republicans, but not by any representative of the President or his legal team, Republicans nor the President could call witnesses or cross-examine witnesses, nor could they call any witnesses themselves. After that closed hearing, they “staged” a hearing before the public at which 17 of their handpicked witnesses appeared and testified. Republicans were included.

The hearing took place, witnesses testified, their stories were exposed, but none had any evidence that rose to the Constitutional level of impeachment. 

I forgot to mention this: to start this entire ball rolling, Adam Schiff came up with an Intelligence Department whistleblower that supposedly provided information that implicated President Trump from the Ukrainian phone call. Who is that whistleblower? I’m not supposed to give his name, but he worked in the CIA office in the White House and is the apprentice of former CIA Director John Brennan.

And Schiff has refused to name the whistleblower and refused to allow him to testify.

The “Call”

We all know about the call between President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine. We won’t go into that all here. It’s only mentioned to point out a very serious element of this dilemma we’re facing. When Speaker Pelosi announced she had authorized House Committees to begin impeachment hearings into President Trump’s alleged pressure placed on Ukraine to investigate Burisma along with Hunter Biden and VP Biden, she claimed it was to create a political advantage for Mr. Trump over Biden in the November 2020 election. When Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry, she nor anyone else had seen the transcript of that phone call. President Trump released it immediately on his own.

Ukraine had nothing to do with House cries for impeachment. Every Democrat of the House Judiciary committee voted to impeach President Trump before the July 25, 2019 Ukraine call happened.

There are so many little things, but essential things, that are significant considerations in this. One thing that I’ve not seen anyone mention is that though we always hear that “Democrats heard the testimony of 17 witnesses of the Ukraine phone call that all gave evidence of Trump’s pressure on Ukraine.” There were NOT 17 witnesses that gave closed-door testimony: there were 18.

Who did Schiff leave out to announce 17 had testified? The Inspector-General of the Intelligence Department who DID  testify. Why was he left out? We don’t know. Adam Schiff refused to release the transcript of his testimony to the press and threatened every member of Congress with censure if they even spoke of it. He refused for anyone to take notes during the testimony. Wonder what his testimony had to say.

The Trial

We all either saw, heard, or read about the first five days of the Impeachment Trial. The first day just set parameters for the trial. The next three days were atrocious examples of how Congress has slipped off the rails in governing our nation. House managers embarrassed Congress. Day four for the entire two hours of the President’s legal team in which Americans saw for the first time shredded the House managers’ testimony. The Defense Team continues today.


Here’s where we are headed: this is all bigger than the impeachment of Donald Trump. It’s much bigger than party politics or the 2020 election or the next decade in Washington, D.C. It’s about the future of the nation.

It’s about the most corrupt government in World history. It’s not about just this decade or last decade; it’s about an attitude of the government that for years remained hidden in the hearts of men. (Remember: Jesus said the sin is what is allowed to exist in hearts that gets acted out)

This corruption lives from top to bottom in America. It includes “players” from the White House to the Capitol and K Street, from the FBI to the CIA, DNI, and NSA to the Pentagon. And it has crept into the crevices of state governments and also to county and parish courthouses. It’s even thriving at the United States Supreme Court. And this: no American is safe from the reach of this corruption that permeates every square inch of America.

Until now, this is where our reporting on corruption has stopped. But we do that no longer. So here’s the plan:

Beginning Wednesday of this week, our research team will begin each day to provide to you — and to everyone with which you determine to share it — links to actual evidence that comes from documentation, courtroom testimony at numerous levels, and even news stories that come complete with source information that has in various occasions withstood the glaring light of state and federal courtroom scrutiny.

Some will say: “These are just conspiracy theories. There’s no way anyone could do these things and getaway without being caught.” You need to understand: the single reason you have not seen or heard of any of this is because the corruption relies on the anonymity that has been given to the purveyors of this evil by the U.S. Media. And they in large part are major players in the entire debacle.

Yes, there IS a Deep State. But the Deep State is not comprised of seedy foreign spies who wear trench coats and hats and only come out at night. The Deep State is comprised of everyday people like you and me who have been put in places of power and authority. And when they see that dangling apple right in front of their faces, they decide to succumb to the temptation and “eat of the forbidden fruit.”

We will each day until the completion of the Impeachment Trial provide you a link to one source of evidence of government corruption. They are all vetted and include all sources. We will not provide these links in stories. It will be up to you to investigate what we give you for yourself. We are just making it easier for you by getting you started with real facts, truths, and evidence.

This trial is NOT a single issue — a single event. It’s simply a part of the evil flooding America. It IS the very first major attempt to attack the first president in at least a good while that possesses the will and the personality to do what he promised he would do for Americans — ALL that he promised he would do. He’s faced the evil. And the evil is scared to death.

I promise you one thing: you will finish each day in which you choose to go down this road and access these documents and data, shaking your head in shock, horror, and anger.

This process is in no way to somehow scare anyone or try to gather up a posse or instigate militant actions or protests. This is to inform you, your family members and friends that sinister people have been and are stealthily and steadily stealing the soul of YOUR nation before YOUR eyes.

God bless you and your family! See you tomorrow.

Impeachment Trial Day 5: “Beginning of The End”

On Saturday, I was astounded to hear the evidence presented by President Trump’s legal team in just the first fifteen minutes of their defense of Mr. Trump. Maybe that is because, for 21 hours, we Americans were inundated by House managers with what they claimed were “facts” and “evidence” of the President’s impeachable offenses. But their facts weren’t factual; their “evidence” was void of any evidence. For the first time in Congressional history, House managers and the Democratic House of Representatives intention is to impeach a sitting U.S. President with no evidence or proof even close to worthy of use in impeachment.

Saturday’s testimony from beginning to end from President Trump’s legal team is the “Beginning of the End” of what will surely be Volume One of “America’s Greatest Government Subversion,” a biography of an attempted coup that was attempted by leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The introduction of the President’s legal team’s case was epic. Attorney Pat Cipollone in opening played the video of Rep. Adam Schiff’s opening comments from the day of the first public House impeachment hearing:

It was a fake version of the President’s phone call with President Zelensky! Schiff did not preface or qualify his “version” of the letter by telling all those looking and listening in that his version was facetious or some droll attempt to engage people — Americans — watching and listening to the hearing. What he did (and most think he did so purposely) was horrify millions of Americans with a version of a phone call by this president with the president of Ukraine that, if true, would certainly move many innocents watching and listening to support the removal of such a scoundral from office.

That was the first act in the trial on Saturday. For House Democrats and other Democrats around the country who hunger for the removal of President Trump from office, it was the “Beginning of the End.”

Bullet Points

  • At the inception of Saturday’s trial segment, President Trump’s legal team (“Defense Team”) made it clear that House managers cherry-picked numerous pieces of evidence they offered during three days to the Senate. Many of those pieces of “evidence” were video clips were edited snipets of testimony. They purposely left out segments of video testimony that confirmed POTUS’s actions regarding Ukraine were appropriate: NO demand for anything from Ukraine, NO quid pro quo, NO pressure of any kind for anything.
  • The Defense Team gave their counter arguments to the “fake” evidence presented by House managers. Regarding the phone call with Zelensky, the Defense Team dwelled for a bit on the fact that not a single one of the 17 “fact witnesses” the House heard from in the Judiciary Committee hearings could provide a single piece of evidence of any wrongdoing by the President, certainly none of the impeachment actions. A couple gave their “opinions” about the matter but testified theirs was opinion and nothing more.
  • House managers claimed the refusal of the President to provide four White House staff members that were subpoenaed, and also subpoenas for documents that were ignored was the “Obstruction of Congress.” House Managers claimed that Mr. Trump was so brazen that he “did not even claim executive privilege as his purpose for ignoring those subpoenas.” They lied! The Defense Team showed response letters from the White House to the House rejecting the subpoenas on the basis that  the subpoenas were issued illegally! The law states that ANY House subpoena MUST be issued by the FULL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and not just a committee. No such subpoenas were authorized by the full House of Representatives. Why did the President not declare his doing so was due to executive privilege? There was no reason for him to do so. The White House never received valid and legal subpoenas.
  • House managers during their 21 hours excoriated the President for Abuse of Power for not taking the advice of several of his foreign intelligence advisers in dealing with Ukraine. Managers failed to explain why he did not hold his actions specifically to those recommended by these intelligence “experts.”Mr. Trump (and the nation) had just come through the Mueller Investigation, on it spent $40 million tax dollars, the White House supplied thousands of documents through Mueller subpoenas, the testimony of every Trump associate Mueller subpoeaned, only for the Mueller Report to find “no collusion with Russia by anyone in the Trump organization.” Then the FISA Court’s just weeks ago surprised the nation by sending a demand to the FBI and DOJ putting them on notice for their significant lies, misrepresentations, insufficient evidence or proof to justify FISA warrants they did apply for and did receive. FISA courts for each such warrant are presented with mountains of evidence that supposedly support those FISA applications. The FBI was in a real “hurry” and talked the judges into issuing the warrants saying, “You know who we are. We’d never try to fool the FISA court! The Legal Team presented this information in explanation of why the President was hesitant to simply adopt intelligence agency suggestions because he had come to distrust some information he was receiving from them. In hindsight, the President was correct.
  • Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) after the Saturday trial gave his thoughts about the day’s trial details. When asked if he had heard enough of the Legal Team’s defense response to House managers to feel comfortable to conclude the trial. Sen. Cardin stated he wants to first hear the direct testimony of those 17 witnesses and four White House staff members so that they can be cross-examined to get to the truth. What the Senator failed to address was the fact that in the Schiff Judiciary/Intelligence hearings in which each of those 17 testified, House Democrats had every opportunity for testimony, cross-examination of all witnesses, and collected all the evidence they requested. No member of the President’s legal team was allowed to attend the hearings, so in defense of the President, they could not ask questions of or cross-examine any of those witnesses. The only witnesses the House did not see were those four from the White House. Why did they not take the time for the court process structured purely to address the process of forcing Congressional subpoena rejections? They never tried and easily could have. They decided to throw the Senate under the bus; to try and get the Senate to do their work.
  • Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) both in post-trial interviews on Saturday parroted the calls for witnesses to testify before the Senate. In addition, they both want documents from the White House. In doing so, it is apparent that Democrats want to move forward with witnesses testimony that, if allowed, will undoubtedly draw this trial out for weeks and maybe even months. This solidifies thoughts that House Speaker Pelosi’s goal is to prolong this trial as long as possible so that Democrat presidential candidates can use the Impeachment “Trump” card (pun intended) with which to campaign against President Trump for his November re-election bid. Many feel that would give Democrats their only real chance to beat Mr. Trump in the Fall. After all, Trump Impeachment is the sum total of the Democrat Party’s platform to attract voters later this year.
  • Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), when asked if he thought further witnesses should be called, he replied that he believes they WILL be called but should NOT be. “Witnesses should be called if there is some certainty they have testimony that will impact the trial. But nothing they could say can make a difference at this point,” he stated. Regarding the White House’s refusal to provide witnesses and evidence, Sen. Lee responded that “If the House wanted those witnesses and evidence, they should have followed through legally and that President Trump would certainly have complied with the determinations made by the Court.”
  • Rep. Adam Schiff was not too impressed by the Defense Team’s Saturday presentation. Moments after the Saturday trial session concluded, Schiff tweeted this: “After listening to the President’s lawyers opening arguments, I have three observations: They don’t contest the facts of Trump’s scheme. They’re trying to deflect, distract from, and distort the truth. And they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses.”
  • Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) in an interview made the argument that even after Saturday’s Defense Team presentation, he has not seen or heard that “the President has done nothing wrong.” The Senator gave no examples of what wrongdoing to which he is referring. But he as other Senators are holding on to this one thing: “we need to hear witnesses and see evidence so we can know the truth.” None of those have even answered when asked why House Democrats did NOT follow through to get those other witnesses they wanted but instead hurried to the Senate for the trial expecting Senators to do the work of the House.


Where do we go from here? They’ll be back in the trial on Monday, and the Defense Team will launch Phase 2 of their defense of President Trump.

Saturday’s events did much to assuage the concern of many Americans that this might result in President Trump’s removal from office. But Saturday’s trial session did not and could not put a period at the end of this story.

I see two real possible paths for this trial to take. But, sigh with relief, because with either, I am comfortable that the President will prevail. Those two possible paths we will walk down:

  1. After Monday’s trial presentation, a good case should be made by Senator McConnell that the evidence and witness testimony given by the House managers falls far short of justification of Impeachment. Further, neither article is based on any of the four Constitutional provisions that must be present for impeachment: Treason, Bribery, High Crimes, and Misdemeanors. For those reasons, a motion could be made for Summary Judgment, which would exonerate the President and dismiss the case.
  2. After the Defense Team finalizes their case, it might result in the call of witnesses and evidence that would undoubtedly prolong the trial. Even if that happens, I feel the Summary Judgment is inevitable when testimony and presentation and debate of any documents are completed.

One final note: in a press conference following the Saturday trial segment, several of the House managers together made comments. Their summary of the day was that the Defense team failed to provide any evidence to exonerate the President while also failing to tell the truth.

The leader of the House managers you know by now is not thought highly of at TruthNewsNetwork. I have attempted to find a neutral spot in this impeachment mess, but I struggle. To that end, as long as Mr. Schiff holds a position of leadership in the House and continues to appear in press conferences or hearings in any speaking situation, we will relate to all comments and statements he issues as “Schiffisms.” (That’s a new word, and we should copyright it!) I’m sure you know to what “Schiffism” refers.

That’s all, folks! Have a great Sunday, and we’ll get together Monday morning.


Impeachment Trial Day 4 Bullet Points

Yeah! The House Managers wrapped up their 24 hours of stating their case they feel is “ironclad and undisputed” and sufficient to justify the removal of the 45th President of the United States. And the day did not end without more fireworks.

Friday evening, impeachment manager Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) labeled the president a dictator.

“He is a dictator,” Nadler said, arguing Trump wants to be “all-powerful” and not respect Congress. “This must not stand. And that is why — another reason — he must be removed from office.”

Let’s get right to our roundup of the day: Day 4.

Impeachment Day 4 Bullet Points

  • Let’s make Nadler’s comments the number one bullet point of the day. Earlier in the week, Nadler set at least two moderate Republican Senators on fire for his telling all Senators that if they vote to not call witnesses during the impeachment trial, they are complicit in the “coverup.” Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) both were enraged by Nadler’s charges against members of the Senate. Collins even wrote a note about it to Chief Justice John Roberts who presides over this impeachment trial.
  • Nadler had a little support with his claim that President Trump is a dictator. Rep. Hassan Jeffries (D-NY) even took it one step farther by making this statement, “The President is a dictator and a despot.”
  • Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who many consider to be a conservative Democrat, stated Friday that he is undecided whether or not the House Managers have made an effective case against President Trump. He said he would like for witnesses to be called. When asked about who would be the arbiter of which witnesses that each party wanted to testify were material to the impeachment and which are not, he stated he would like to see Justice John Roberts make those decisions.
  • It defies logic, but House Managers spent a large portion of their time on Friday discussing Joe and Hunter Biden. The point was to show that there was “no legitimate basis” for Trump to be seeking an investigation into the Bidens, and the request to Ukraine’s president was made purely to dirty up a Democratic rival who was polling better than him. No one I’ve heard has yet given an explanation that makes sense for Democrats to actually bring the Bidens up in the context of Ukraine corruption. The only one that might make some sense is for them to get ahead of what they must assume will be an onslaught of allegations from the President’s legal team. I guess we’ll find out if that is there reason in the next few days when the President’s defense team take over the trial.
  • House manager Hakeem Jeffries, using witness testimony from the House proceedings, argued the summary of Mr. Trump’s July 25 call was hidden in a secure server because it was politically damaging for the president. The White House “tried to bury” the summary of the call to protect the president, Jeffries said. The problem is that every president — including Barack Obama — uses a secure server for their most confidential and classified communications for, in President Obama’s words, “We don’t want everyone to know what we’re doing before we want to let them know.” Oops!
  • House Democrats warned Friday in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial that the president will persist in abusing his power and endangering American democracy unless Congress intervenes to remove him before the 2020 election. “He is who he is,” declared Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He told the senators listening as jurors that Trump put the U.S-Ukraine relationship on the line in a way that benefited Russia just so he could take a political “cheap shot” at Democratic foe Joe Biden.
  • Nobody was more shocked than the Democrats and the Mainstream media that the Senate gallery during the first week of the impeachment trial was only half-full each day. Most assumed this being only the third such trial in U.S. history that Americans would fight to witness the trial personally. Explaining why it might have happened, Sen. Rand Paul responded: “You know, 28 hours of hearing the same thing over and over again isn’t all that exciting.” Paul spent much of his trial time in the Senate chamber answering crossword puzzles. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), who underwent back surgery in August, joked: “Well, if I had a choice I’d probably be home watching Chicago PD.” He added: “No, don’t put that in there or that would make me sound terrible.” The reason in my opinion is that Americans don’t live in a world where there is interest to hear the exact same argument by House Managers over and over and over. So Americans thought they’d get the trial bullet points at TruthNewsNetwork!
  • The President’s legal team will begin their defense presentation beginning at 10:00 AM Saturday. It is expected to last just two hours with the remainder of their allotted 4-hours in which to present the President’s defense case will resume first thing Monday.
  • Republican Senator Pat Toomey sits at a desk in the Senate chamber which, by tradition, must always be stocked with candy. Toomey’s office received a shipment of candy from Hershey’s Friday morning to restock his desk. Eating isn’t allowed on the Senate floor, and as we have noted, water and milk are the only beverages allowed. The exception for the candy desk goes back decades, though, beginning in 1968 when Republican Senator George Murphy, who sat in that chair, began stocking his desk with candy and offering it to his colleagues.


In losing, let’s do this a bit different than normal. Let’s play the game “Where are they now?”

  • Where is Obama’s former National Security Adviser Susan Rice? She during Obama’s term was visible non-stop. She’s the one that went on every Sunday news show regarding the Benghazi attacks blaming those attacks for retaliation by Islamists for a anti-Muslim video produced by an American. That of course was later debunked. Further, she was personally responsible for the unmasking of hundreds of Americans. “Unmasking” refers to the practice of releasing the identities of individuals who are American citizens who are communicating with foreigners that might in some way be dangerous to Americans and are being surveiled by the NSA. In that surveillance, they are identified just for communicating with the foreigner. Federal law protects those Americans. Rice disregarded the law. Where is she now?
  • Where is John Brennan? Brennan was the CIA Director under Barack Obama. He is a lifetime intelligence operator that has held several different positions throughout his career. Brennan has been voracious in his non-stop attacks of President Trump through social media and in news interviews labeling the President as a Russian agent, a traitor, and someone who unqualified to serve as President. Brennan has been implicated in several of the criminal investigations underway under the auspicious of the Department of Justice and has been found breaking several federal laws. With the exception of an occasional tweet, Brennan has been invisible. Where is he now?
  • Where is Valerie Jarrett? Jarrett is an Iranian American who is a lifetime friend and confidant of the Obamas. She served behind the scenes during the Obama Administration as a “senior political adviser” to the President. Conventional wisdom is that she was President Obama’s “go-to” person for advice and direction for EVERYTHING political under Obama and even when the Obamas were in Chicago. It is thought by many that President Obama did nothing without discussing with Jarrett and never made any political decision without her. Where is she now?
  • Where is Nancy Pelosi? Did anyone but me notice that this the first week of the Senate Impeachment trail Pelosi has been totally hidden from the press. Do you find that a bit odd? The House Speaker is constantly paraded from tv network to network, especially when it comes to taking shots at President Trump. Could it be that she is laying low while watching the impeachment process fall apart? Remember: she did not want to go the impeachment route. She saw what doing that did to the Republican Party after the Bill Clinton impeachment: Democrats won control of Congress. Many feel the only reason she relented to the Trump impeachment push was solely to pacify the far-left of her party: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib. Pelosi is too shrewd to be totally out of this impeachment process. It’s too big a happening. But her laying low gives her the opportunity to win back the part of the Democrat Party that she was perilously close to losing if she did not agree to the impeachment. This way when the President is vindicated, while many Democrat Party leaders will have egg on their faces, Nancy will be able to point at them and say, “I told you so!”

Four days of the impeachment trial down. How many more are there to come? All we know today is it’s Saturday and they’re meeting for a couple of hours for the Trump legal team to begin their defense of the President.

How long will this thing go on? It should take the President’s team no more than three days (and probably only two) to make their case. In a normal way the Senate would then have a vote on the removal of the President from office. However, if the cries for additional witness testimony and more evidence are successful, this trial could carry-on for several months, God forbid.

Fret not: TruthNewsNetwork is on top of all of the pertinent details for each day of the trial. Make sure you join us daily to get the latest.

Let’s take Sunday off. If something critical is broken in the Saturday two-hour presentation by the President’s legal team we’ll put that out for you early Sunday morning. If not, let’s just take Sunday off, go to church, be with families and enjoy a day away from politics.

See you Monday!

Senate Impeachment Trial: Day 3

Thursday in “Impeachment Ville:” What a day!

There are a plethora of things to mention about the activities that occurred in the Senate Chamber on Day 3 of the Senate Impeachment Trial. Sadly, though, none of those things we will say have anything to do with any evidence of President Trump’s wrongdoing (or alleged wrongdoing) that supposedly are responsible for bringing us to this place.

House Management Leader Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) took center-stage most of the day as he has for the first two days of the trial. He consumed almost all of the time allotted for House Democrats to present their case to the Senators who will vote later on the removal of President Trump from office. But they also “danced the dance of politics” before the television cameras that beamed their impeachment charade to all Americans who think enough about the impeachment trial to take time from their busy lives to look-in.

Thursday’s Democrat presentation bordered on a story wrapped in desperation. No one knows better than the House Managers that their lack of evidence places them in a spot of almost inevitable failure in their impeachment attempts. To their credit, however, they attempted to stay on point: except for Mr. Schiff. He wandered all around the world, speculating that “we must take care of Ukraine so they will continue to help us defeat the Russians over there so that we will never need to defeat the Russians over here.” Huh?

Several times that desperation became really obvious — so evident because they actually journeyed back to the Mueller Report to cherrypick a few salient points that although they were part of Mr. Mueller’s exoneration of President Trump for allegedly colluding with the Russians in 2016, Mr. Schiff felt there was still enough damning information in the report to fuel an impeachment.

Points from the Mueller Report rang on mostly deaf ears in the Senate.

Let’s look at the Day 3 bullet points, and then I’ll share a significant letter with you.

Bullet Points: Day 3

  • House Managers recalled the testimony in the House Judiciary Committee hearing of Harvard law professor Noah Feldman. You may remember that in that hearing, Feldman (as did others) gave a passionate list of justifications for the impeachment of President Trump, none of which were based on any factual information or data. Each was exhaustive, too. More importantly, each was strictly his opinion. Schiff, as usual, drew on those Feldman justifications even though they were entirely unfactual and opinion.
  • Many wondered if there would be any pushback from House Manager’s aggressive and often angry Senate presentations. The first sign of a backlash among that critical group came Thursday when Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) a moderate member of the conference, said she was offended by House manager Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s assertion that GOP members voting against allowing new testimony and evidence were engaged in a “cover-up.” “I took it as offensive,” she told reporters. “As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended.”
  • Content if the trial on Thursday became so benign that House Manager Hakeem Jeffries at one point told a story of one American who approached him upset about something that Jeffries thought he wanted Democrats to investigate regarding the Trump trial. Instead, the man said, “Someone voted against Derek Jeter on his Hall of Fame ballot.” Former New York Yankees great Derek Jeter was one of three baseball players inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame recently. Jeter’s election was one vote short of being unanimous. (That had a lot to do with impeachment, right?)
  • Wednesday before leaving Davos, Switzerland, for his return to Washington, President Trump was asked by a reporter if he had considered attending the impeachment trial as a visitor. The President replied that he might do that, but he was certain his defense team would frown on his doing so. Thursday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) reached out to the President and asked the President to be the Senator’s guest in the visitor gallery.
  • Rep. Val Demings takes the stand to discuss the U.S. obligation to provide Ukraine with aid to “counter Russian aggression and shorten the war in the East.” Fifteen thousand people have been killed and 1.4 million displaced as a result of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, according to Demings. She says the U.S. has provided $1.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since 2014 and another $1.5 billion in other assistance. What she did NOT mention was that the Obama Administration routinely held foreign aid (as does EVERY president) in negotiations for those countries’ actions. Obama withheld aid:Pakistan — $800 million; Colombia — $450 million; Phillipines — $433 million; Egypt — $260 million; Honduras — $30 million; Mexico — $26 million. Of course, Obama’s VP “threatened” to withhold $1 billion of aid to Ukraine. House managers failed to mention any of these.
  • House managers have used just 16 of their agreed-to 24 hours to present their impeachment case. Therefore, the floor is theirs again Friday. The President’s legal team is currently scheduled to begin their defense on Saturday. However, there is some conversation about waiting through the weekend and starting on Monday.


In closing, I am going to read a letter written regarding impeachment. It’s incredible in content, its spirit, and its call to action. It’s a letter you “Need” to hear.

I’ll tell you who wrote the letter after I complete its reading.

“Mr. President, this is a day of solemnity and awe. I rise humbled that we are participating in a process that was mapped out more than 200 years ago by the Founding Fathers and that the words we say today will be looked upon by historians and future Congresses for guidance. That is quite a responsibility.

Growing up, our country and its government seemed like a mighty oak — strong, rooted, permanent, and grand.

It has shaken me that we stand at the brink of removing a President — not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he’s committed — but because conditions in America has made it possible for a small group of people who hate the President and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him.

Most troubling to me are the conditions that allowed this to happen, and the small group who precipitated them.

It is the small group of lawyers and zealots who decided that they would invest time and money to exploit a weakness that people knew the President had, find a case to air it publicly, and use it to bring him down.

What is so profoundly disturbing is not that this small group of haters hatched this plan. It’s that this group — or any group equally dogmatic and cunning — came so close to succeeding.

If you had asked me one year ago if people like this with such obvious political motives could use our courts, play the media and tantalize the legislative branch to achieve their ends of bringing down the President, I would have said “not a chance — that doesn’t happen in America.”But it almost happened. And in the future it could be a left wing zealous organization or right wing group or some other group with strong narrow beliefs.

We’ve got to understand how we’ve reached the point where any small group could have so much power.

The President is an extraordinary but flawed individual. But so are many other revered leaders, including other presidents. And when we knew about their flaws or suspected as much, we didn’t make that a cause celebre — not because we condoned whatever flaw they might possess, but because we realize that none of us are superhuman.

We are all flawed. “Let him without sin cast the first stone” is no more a cliche today than it was almost 2,000 years ago.

This democracy would not exist if only the perfect among us were allowed to contribute.

There are many of us in politics and many in the media who carry on and opine as if we and they are perfect.

We’re not.

Maybe we’re seeking an impossible duality. We demand, as we should, that our elected leaders be held to the highest standard. And then we shine the brightest light imaginable to expose those who don’t measure up.

But, of course, no one can meet that standard, particularly under the blinding bright glare of  21st century light.

There is a fundamental question our society must address — how do we keep our standards high but at the same time accept, as the Founding Fathers did, that our leaders are only human.

Related to this is a second underlying cause that has allowed this small group of zealots to almost undo the President.

It seems we have lost the ability to forcefully advocate for our position without trying to criminalize or at least dishonor our adversaries — often over matters having nothing to do with the public trust. And it is hurting the country; it is marginalizing and polarizing the Congress.

In today’s environment, it would be easy, but wrong, to lay the blame for this predicament simply on a narrow band of zealots out to destroy this President.

It would be easy, but wrong, to say that the only reason the President survived this scandal is a strong economy.

What began with Watergate as a solemn and necessary process to force a President to adhere to the rule of law, has grown beyond our control so that now we are routinely using criminal accusations and scandal to win the political battles and ideological differences we cannot settle at the ballot box.

Both parties are to blame.

In conclusion, we have all been shaken by these last six months, but there are two glowing beacons of optimism — two strong oaks that still stand mightily.

The first is the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Every year I live, and every year I serve I am ever increasingly amazed at their wisdom and genius.

They didn’t know there would be political parties, but a simple mathematical fraction — two-thirds — a two-thirds majority in the “cooling saucer of the Senate” meant that removal of a President from office would have to involve more than the whims of a narrow band of politicians.

We walked up to the abyss and it was simply the elegant mathematics of the Founding Fathers that kept us from going over.

They have pulled America back from the brink of future chaos that might occur if we remove this President. God bless the Founding Fathers.

The second oak is the American people. They are not necessarily as informed as we are on the intricate particularities of this case. They didn’t follow every twist and turn.

But they know that any President’s wrongdoing reflects human frailty rather than malevolence or any abuse of power or duty. They know from their common sense wisdom that this does not rise to the level of impeachment and removal either as defined by the Constitution or as defined by their common sense of justice, fairness, and right and wrong. They know that if they were in the President’s shoes, they aren’t sure how they would react.

Many of my colleagues excoriate any mention of the polls. But my colleagues on this side of the aisle have cited the polls not as politicians putting their fingers in the wind, but as a measure of what the American people feel.

In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, that is a legitimate consideration in deciding whether a President should be removed. And for six months, the American people in every segment of the country have been unwavering in their view that the President should not be removed.

They remain unshakable in their belief that the Congress, the Courts, and the press had gone too far. They are the only, truly rational actor in the whole drama. God bless them.

The people and the founders are the twin oaks that stand tall amidst this sad episode of American history. But if the cycle of political recrimination and scandalizing continues, the American people will become more alienated and cynical and shaken by the political process and they, too, will lose faith in the great instrument the Founding Fathers have given us.

If it gets to the point where the American people become too cynical we could lose it all.

After this is over let’s end the recriminations. Let’s not blame each other. Let’s instead think about what brought us to this point.

Let us shake hands and say we are now going to forego bringing down people for political gain. Let us understand that our leaders have foibles, and though we must be held to a higher standard, let us not make it a sport to expose those weaknesses.

The American people have saved us from ourselves. Let’s not ask them to do it too many more times.”

The letter was written in 1999 by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer regarding the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton!

Amazing similarities to that trial and this one, right? Very different attitudes though!


Senate Impeachment Trial: Day Two

After a wild and lengthy day, Day One of the Trump Senate Impeachment trial is in the books for historians to expand and interpret for future generations of Americans to see, hear, and read. That what we are experiencing has only happened two previous times in 270 years is incredible. That alone should give all Americans pause when considering the seriousness of any presidential impeachment process.

Yes, Day One was partisan. Yes, it was full of allegations, many of which were outrageous in light of their lack of evidentiary foundation. But the fact that THIS group of House Managers is led by Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) explains to us all how and why such outlandish accusations were made.

Day One was a day to “simply” set the process with which the Senate will use for this impeachment trial. The word “simply” is in quotation marks simply because there was nothing simple in the day’s trial activities. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at the beginning of the day introduced a resolution for the impeachment process. Thirteen hours later, after all of the accusations, vitriolic tantrums, and cries of  “Lies, Lies, Lies!” by Rep. Nadler, the Resolution was brought to a vote by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. It passed down partisan lines, 53-47.

Before we look at Day Two’s trial bullet points, I want to make sure all TNN partners understand what the most contentious topic in Day One involved: refusal to appear before Schiff’s House committee by members of the Trump Administration. Several of those Administration members were issued subpoenas by the House Judiciary Committee for their testimonies but declined to appear. This so roiled Democrats that one of their two Articles of Impeachment, “Obstruction of Congress,” was because of the refusal of those people to appear before Congress.

What does the law say about such refusals to honor a Congressional subpoena? Are there court decisions based on such instances, and, if so, what were their outcomes?

Let’s look quickly at this before we get to Bullet Points:

The Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s power to issue subpoenas, saying in order to write laws, it also needs to be able to investigate. If lawmakers want to punish someone who ignores a congressional subpoena, they typically first hold the offender “in contempt of Congress.” The contempt process can start in either the House or the Senate. Unlike with legislation, it only takes one of the chambers to make and enforce a contempt citation.

How is a contempt finding enforced?

The Supreme Court said in 1821 that Congress has “inherent authority” to arrest and detain witnesses who defy hearing subpoenas. In 1927, the high court said the Senate acted lawfully in sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general, who had refused to testify about a bribery scheme known as the Teapot Dome scandal. It has been almost a century since Congress exercised this arrest-and-detain authority, and the practice is unlikely to make a comeback.

Alternatively, Congress can ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal prosecutor, to bring criminal charges against a witness who refuses to appear. There is a criminal law that prohibits explicitly flouting a congressional subpoena. But this option is also unlikely to be pursued, at least when it comes to subpoenas against executive branch officials, given that federal prosecutors are part of the branch’s Justice Department.

The most recent example of this appeal to the D.C. Court occurred when Obama Attorney General Eric Holder defied Congressional subpoenas for records from the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme the Obama Department of Justice instigated at the southern border. Holder defied the Congressional “Contempt of Congress” finding. Congress asked the D.C. Federal Prosecutor — an Obama appointee — to make a case in federal court against Holder. The prosecutor declined to prosecute.

Congress has opted for a third and final approach to enforcing a contempt finding: getting its lawyers to bring a civil lawsuit asking a judge to rule that compliance is required. Failure to comply with such an order can trigger a “contempt of court” finding, enforced through daily fines and even imprisonment.

That explanation of non-compliance with a Congressional subpoena is vital for you to understand. Why? Because Democrat House Managers on Day One used most of their time in the 13-hour hearing to harp on their need for the Senate to enforce House subpoenas that were denied by Trump Administration folks. These demands are ludicrous. Why? Federal courts (including SCOTUS) have previously refused to involve their courts in such cases because the litigants did not exhaust all legal remedies provided under the Law FIRST.

House Democrats never took any legal actions detailed above to enforce their subpoenas. Instead, they rushed their impeachment case to the Senate, hoping the Senate would do the job of the House. And the Senate so far has denied their requests.

Now to Bullet Points.

Day Two Impeachment Bullet Points

  • Opening arguments began in President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday, with Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., telling senators they need to remove Trump from office because he’s shown he’s ready and willing to cheat in the 2020 election.
  • Schiff picked up where left off on Tuesday with constant baseless jabs at the President with remarks like these: “The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box because we cannot be assured the vote will be fairly won,” Schiff told the Senate. He called Trump’s efforts to get a foreign government to announce an investigation into his political rival “a gross abuse of power” that requires the Senate to act.
  • It is probable that President Trump’s legal team won’t begin his defense until Saturday. Both the House Managers and Trump’s legal team have 24 hours (over three days) to present their cases.
  • Schiff gave an overview of the House Managers’ impeachment case against the President, saying once again that the House case “paints an overwhelming and damning picture of the President’s efforts to use the powers of his office to corruptly solicit foreign help in his re-election campaign and withhold official acts and military aid to compel that support.”
  • Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), followed Schiff, and they took their case one step deeper. They alleged Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani is responsible for a  smear campaign against then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. According to Nadler and Garcia, Yovanovitch was thought to be a roadblock to Giuliani’s plan to try to dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden and his son, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.
  • There was an odd twist in the Democrats’ discussion about their case for impeachment when  Rep. Val Demings (D-FL) presented a tweet from President Trump who tweeted from Air Force One Wednesday while returning to Washington from Davos, Switzerland. Here’s the President’s tweet: “I thought our team did an excellent job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.” Here’s Demings’ interpretation of that tweet: “Trump’s tweet proves the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress.” She described the charge as “covering up witnesses and documents from the American people.” Demings added, “This morning, the President not only confessed to it, but he also bragged about it.”
  • “Witness trading” was suggested as a way to allow witnesses to testify in the Senate trial. “Witness trading” is a process where Democrats would choose a witness they want to testify, and Republicans would then get one witness of their choosing to testify. That hit a roadblock. Schiff shot down speculation that would be allowed even if Republicans agreed. “This isn’t like some fantasy football trade,” Schiff said. “Trials aren’t trades for witnesses.”
  • Nothing new in the way of evidence was presented by House Manager. Rep. Schiff once again doubled-down on their constant claim: “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.”


Just imagine how difficult it was for Republicans to sit on their hands during nine hours of the SOS. (Same Old Stuff) Senate rules prevented any replies, responses, or outbursts from the President’s legal team members. In several post-trial session interviews, several GOP leaders confirmed once again that the House Managers in presenting their case for impeachment on Day Two did nothing more than repeat all of their rhetorical allegations from Day One, adding nothing more than the assumption of the “true” meaning of President Trump’s Davos-to-D.C. Air Force One tweet.

To put a period on Day Two, one can say the most apparent two things revealed by House Managers is that 1) they have NO evidence to support either of the two articles of impeachment, and 2) they are desperate for evidence though they have declared numerous times in testimony that “we have iron-clad evidence of the President’s impeachable wrongdoing.” Their desperation explains their rabid and constant pleas for Senators to allow witnesses to be called to testify in the Senate Chamber. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

My conclusion? I’ll sum it up with this trip down Memory Lane with you. The day after President Trump’s inauguration I predicted three things were certain to happen during his presidency: Democrats WOULD impeach the President before the end of his first term in office, 2) the Senate would summarily reject the House Managers’ case against the President and not remove him from office, and 3) President Trump will not only win the 2020 election, but the GOP will hold the Senate, retake control of the House while increasing their majority status in the Senate.

I’m one-for-three so far. I hope for all Americans before mid-November this year I’m three-for-three!

NOTE: Please let us know your thoughts on our upcoming live daily broadcast of TNN, Monday through Friday, 9-11 AM Central. Please give us a quick toll-free call at 1-866-378-7884. That’s 1-866-37-TRUTH. No need for your name or other info. Just leave us a quick voicemail: “I like the idea,” “I probably won’t participate,” or even “Heck no, don’t do it!” Our target to begin will be in mid-February if we go to that live two-hour daily show. It’ll be a normal talk-show broadcast live with audience phone calls from our toll-free number. Thanks!

Senate Impeachment Trial:Day One

The fireworks were aplenty! But as all the world looked on, the United States Senate gaveled in and began just the third impeachment trial in United States history. As House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) said after the House voted to impeach President Trump a month ago: “Donald Trump will be impeached…FOREVER!”

But will the Senate convict him in this trial and remove him from office? If so, Mr. Trump would be the first such United States President to be evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

However, the fire of Impeachment was just lighted on Tuesday. We have a long way to go. As promised, we present for you a summary of the topics of import from Day One of the Senate impeachment trial in bullet point:

  • Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and each Senator had already been sworn last week. The Senate was gaveled into session at about noon. The first order of business was to consider the rules with which the Impeachment trial would be governed. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell presented a resolution with proposed details of trial operations that the Republican majority had determined. The fireworks then began.
  • The House Managers (“Prosecutors”) led by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the President’s defense team each took the same amounts of time to debate each issue of the Trial Resolution. The most contentious element of the Impeachment Resolution was the calling of witnesses and the presentation of physical evidence.
  • Leading House Manager Rep. Adam Schiff made the argument (which he restated throughout the Tuesday trial) that the President has continued to make statements that Article II of the Constitution gives a President authority to “do anything he wants to do.”
  • The President’s attorneys argued that the House refused to take their issues regarding members of the Administration refusing to appear before Congress or to provide subpoenaed documents through the court system. The House Managers on the floor admitted that going to federal court would get in the way of impeaching the President before the election.
  • The President’s attorneys argued that the House subpoenas for witness testimony from Administration members and documents were each invalid because none of them were issued with the consent of the House — only from various committees, which is a violation of the Congressional subpoena process for witness testimony and evidence.
  • Senate rejects Schumer amendment calling for a subpoena for White House witnesses and documents: On a party-line vote, 53-47, the Senate voted to put aside — or kill — Schumer’s amendment to subpoena witnesses and reports from the White House.
  • Senator Schumer proposed a new amendment to subpoena documents from the State Department related to calls between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed for the subpoena for State Department documents by a vote of 53-47.
  • Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) started the process by presenting Democrat proposed amendments to the resolution. The majority of Democrat amendments introduced on Tuesday dealt with the calling of specific witnesses from the Trump Administration. Some of those wishing to be called are:
  • Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney: Mulvaney is said to have approved a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that was conditioned on investigations into Hunter Biden and Burisma, according to testimony from National Security Council member Fiona Hill. Democrats hope to question him about that meeting, and his role in the delay in releasing nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed for the appearance of Mr. Mulvaney by a vote of 53-47.
  • Former National Security Adviser John Bolton: Bolton had a meeting with Trump about removing the hold on aid to Ukraine, according to testimony from former National Security Council official Tim Morrison. Bolton has hinted he has information about Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine that is not yet known to Congress. He refused to testify before the House without a court order, but Democrats hope he can shed light on how much high-level officials knew about the pressure campaign — and when they knew what. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed for Bolton’s appearance by a vote of 53-47.
  • Associate Director for National Security, Office of Management and Budget Michael Duffey: Duffey, a political appointee at the Office of Management and Budget, sent emails to the White House about the hold the president wanted on aid to Ukraine, according to witness testimony from OMB official Mark Sandy during the House inquiry. Duffey also refused to testify before the House but may be able to clarify the timeline around the release of the aid. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed for the appearance of Asst. Director Duffey by a vote of 53-47.
  • Mulvaney senior adviser Robert Blair: As an aide to Mulvaney, Blair was involved in communications between the Office of Management and Budget and the White House, and could provide testimony about the timing of releasing aid to Ukraine, according to Sandy’s sworn statements during the House inquiry. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed for Blair’s appearance by a vote of 53-47.
  • Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) initiated a debate on an amendment to “prevent the selective admission of evidence and to provide for the appropriate handling of classified and confidential materials,” again failed along party lines, 53-47.
  • Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) proposed an amendment to accelerate witness votes. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed to accelerate witness votes by a vote of 53-47.
  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) proposed an amendment for there to be an independent arbiter to determine which witnesses submitted by either side are a material witness to this trial and which should be allowed to provide testimony and which is not. Schiff’s proposal was for Chief Justice Roberts to be that independent arbiter. The Senate rejected the amendment proposed to rely on an arbiter to determine in any future witness testimony which witnesses would be material witnesses and therefore allowed to testify and which are not by a vote of 52-48. (Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) crossed party line to support this amendment.)
  • The Final Vote of the Day was to approve on Party lines the Trial Rules presented by Majority Leader McConnell


On the first day of the Senate Impeachment Trial, eight amendments to the Resolution made by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to set the orders of the operation of the trial were proposed. Each proposed amendment was “tabled” by votes down party lines: 53-47 except for one that Sen. Susan Collins supported. “Tabled” is nothing more than a technical way for legislators to claim “innocent” when confronted with their vote on each of these issues. The “tabling” of an amendment is not a vote against an amendment, instead of saying, “We will not vote on this amendment at this time.” It is highly unlikely such a vote on these amendments will ever happen, so the effect is the same.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had a conflict that required his presence across the street from the U.S. Capitol at 10:00 AM to hear oral arguments on a SCOTUS case today. The impeachment trial will reconvene after noon.

My Thoughts

We all knew this was not going to be a fast process, even though the House rushed their impeachment inquiry, saying it was necessary for their investigation to be completed quickly. But their actions Tuesday were surprising to me. Multiple times Rep. Adam Schiff stated, “the impeachment case and evidence provided by the House is ironclad proof that the President committed impeachable offenses. If that indeed is true, why did they spend thirteen hours in the Senate demanding that they are provided an unfettered ability to collect more evidence and interrogate more witnesses? Any reasonable person must conclude that their evidence is not “ironclad,” as Mr. Schiff continually maintained.

Also, over and over again in the Tuesday trial, Schiff reminded the Senators in the Chamber how easy and quick it would be for all those witnesses they requested to be subpoenaed for their testimony to appear and testify NOW. Why did they NOT issue subpoenas and pursue any of those who did not respond to those subpoenas before they moved to an impeachment trial?

The answer to that question is that the House committees “didn’t want to take up all the time they have before the 2020 election,” so they did not pursue their legal remedies to obtain that testimony. Instead, they relied on the Senate to do so during the impeachment trial.

The Senate adjourned 1:48 AM and will reconvene at 1:00 PM Eastern on Wednesday (today).

In conclusion, the one thing that made the biggest impression to me — and that impression is very alarming — is that Rep. Adam Schiff is NOT an honest person. He’s not a reasonable person — at least in this setting. Mr. Schiff is NOT understanding, conducive to working hard for consensus or to negotiate. Worst of all is that as unreasonable as I have felt he is, especially in his anger for President Trump, I feel he seems to be a evil person.

I am not passing judgment on him or any other member of Congress. But Rep. Schiff demeaned again and again not just President Trump, but every Republican that voted for Mr. Trump. He made clear over and over that he “knows” that the President colluded with Russians in 2016 and that Mr. Trump is working with the Russians for this upcoming election.

I cannot make this stuff up. This group of rabid Democrats feels unconstitutional and despotic objects have been woven into the fabric of the presidency that to which Americans elected Mr. Trump to inhabit. Further, they maintain that in doing so, those Trump voters gave (in error) the control of the nation to Donald Trump and a small group of elites that he has hand-chosen to assist.

Wednesday (today) is Day Two of the Impeachment of President Trump. And we have it all for you here! Make sure you are here tomorrow morning (Thursday) and every day this week — including the weekend. You’ll not be surprised and certainly not disappointed at what you see.

One final thought before you leave today: please click on the link below and listen to this 90-second notice: