January 31, 2020

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander apparently has heard enough (join the club) and has been swayed to the “no witnesses” side, while Sens. Susan Collins and Mitt Romney are breaking with the majority and voting “yes,” to have them. (I'd expected no better from Romney but had of Collins.) At this writing –- early Friday –- the one Republican said to be still undecided is Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. If she votes “yes,” it’ll be 50-50, but according to Senate impeachment rules, a tie means the motion fails.

It’s likely that no Democrat, no matter how sick to death of the process he or she might be, dares vote against prolonging it with more witnesses, more court challenges, more mess. This makes no logical sense when House managers have said repeatedly that they’ve already proved their case.

Friday promises to be extremely contentious, before (and maybe after) the vote. As I said yesterday, I think this fight over witnesses is a huge act; the managers don’t WANT them, or want them only if they can be sure certain defense witnesses will be ruled “immaterial.” They have a plan for that, which they pushed on Thursday: have Chief Justice John Roberts rule on the admissibility of each witness’s testimony. Ah...”fairness.” (Ah, sarcasm.) They said they were proposing this –- I kid you not –- in order to “save time” and keep the witness period to one week at most. Judging from Chief Justice Roberts’ decisions Thursday regarding admissibility of questions touching on “whistleblower” ERIC CIARAMELLA, managers can get a good idea which witnesses will and won’t be ruled “material.”

Here’s what I mean: When Rand Paul submitted a question to both House manager Schiff and the President’s counsel, Chief Justice Roberts glanced at the card, set it aside, and said, “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.” Apparently he’d determined that no one may utter this person’s name, whether the question specifically identifies him as the “whistleblower” or not.

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, who has sued for records on this individual, called this “an extraordinary example of the ‘deep state’ protecting itself.” As we’ve discussed, ERIC CIARAMELLA has ties to Joe Biden and was assigned by the CIA to deal with Ukraine issues in the White House under both Obama and Trump. Fitton told Tucker Carlson Thursday that questions about him are “of intense public interest,” but that even YouTube will take down any video that mentions his name. The ban on saying his name is a political consideration, not a legal one. Fitton theorizes that Schiff has actually intimidated (he used the word “bullied”) the Chief Justice and others on this point.

So, here’s one question Republican senators SHOULD have posed to Trump’s legal counsel: “Please explain why the Whistleblower Statute and whatever level of anonymity it might convey doesn’t APPLY to the person who filled out the whistleblower complaint on the Trump/Zelensky phone call.” I don’t think, in 16 hours of asking about 180 questions, that anyone asked this. I would’ve loved to hear the answer, as my understanding is that this statute applies just to internal affairs within the intel community, concerning an “intelligence activity.” Going outside that realm to express concerns about the President of the United States is not covered by the statute. That’s why I’m fine with saying “ERIC CIARAMELLA.”

But as long as Democrats are pushing, there’s one thing Republicans should demand: the release of Transcript #18, the one with Intel Community IG Michael Atkinson’s testimony reportedly concerning the “whistleblower,” ERIC CIARAMELLA, and the origins of Schiff’s “inquiry.” There you go, Democrats; you said you wanted more witness testimony!

Dems have a new talking point: this won’t be a “true” acquittal unless witnesses are called. 

Nancy Pelosi, who has come unglued, said this: “The President’s team is there to dismantle the Constitution of the United States...well, he will not be acquitted; you cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. And you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and, and that...I think they disgraced themselves TERRIBLY...”

Call the men in the white coats; she is out of her mind. This ridiculous line of argument has nothing to do with the law as it applies here, but that won’t stop Democrats from repeating it over and over until everybody’s brain feels mushy or until the election, whichever comes last. And never mind that it was the Republicans who weren’t allowed to call witnesses in the House. Schiff called 17. Oops, I mean 18.

Here’s a great question that actually got asked, from a group of Republican senators: “Recent reporting described two NSC staff holdovers from the Obama administration attending an all-hands meeting of NSC staff held about two weeks into the Trump administration and talking loudly enough to be overheard saying, ‘We need to do everything we can to take out the President.’ On July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee hired one of those individuals, Sean Misko. The report further describes relationships between Misko, Lt. Col. Vindman, and an individual alleged as the ‘whistleblower.’ Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky, and what role has he played throughout your committee’s investigation?”

From the pauses he took while reading this aloud, it was easy to see that the Chief Justice was, shall we say, ticked off. Schiff slowly walked to the podium. He said he was “appalled at some of the smearing of the professional people that work for the Intelligence Committee.” He said, “I will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever. Nor will I share any information that I believe could or could not lead to the identification of the whistleblower.” Then he gave a seethingly self-righteous lecture on the protection of whistleblowers’ identities. He said the President likes this question because “he wants his pound of flesh.” What a performance! This was PRICELESS.

“I can’t tell you who the whistleblower is because I don’t know,” he lied, “but can tell you who the whistleblower should be. It should be every one of us. Every one of us should be willing to blow the whistle on Presidential misconduct.” Yes, he really said this. Say, how about blowing the whistle on this guy?

He said people won’t blow the whistle “if their names are going to be dragged through the mud.” Hey, guess who knows how that feels more than anybody on earth? President Trump.

The Senate will convene at 1 p.m. Friday for four hours of deliberations. Then there’s a vote called the “gateway,” as in “open up the ‘gateway’ to witnesses.” Since the “yes” to witnesses requires 51, that will probably fail. After that, there could be more debate and maybe voting on specific witnesses. As Majority Leader, Sen. McConnell will receive “first right of recognition” by Chief Justice Roberts, meaning he’d be recognized first on the Senate floor and could make a motion whenever he senses the time is right to dismiss charges or to call a final vote to “Acquit” or “Convict” on the two Articles of Impeachment.

According to NewsBusters, broadcast evening news reports gave the Trump legal counsel 100 percent negative reviews of their opening arguments and the House Democrats 95 percent positive. (!) I see they’re increasingly focused on running down Alan Dershowitz and grossly distorting his legal arguments.

So I’m going to leave you with a very positive review in THE FEDERALIST from someone who exhibits something increasingly rare: a rational mind:





Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Comments 1-25 of 36

  • Bert E. Wiggers

    02/03/2020 04:18 PM

    Seeing Shif on TV is a pain,

  • Don Ryan

    02/02/2020 11:33 AM

    Dear Gov. Mike, I watch your TV show and get the newletter-enjoy them both. I've ben a democrat all my life and am very very disappointed in them with these sham hearings I've heard and been told something very disturbing. If it's true, I figured you heard it too. I was told Plosi took around 5 million dollars from SS to pay for those hearings. If true, wouldn't that be illegal? H ow could she get her old hands on our SS $? Also, when pres. Trump campaigned in 2016 he promised not to mess with SS or Medicare. Last week on TV he make the statement after he's elected he soon will make cuts to SS and Medicare. Gov. Mike, don't he realize that senior citizens and baby boomers are the biggest voting block in the USA? The boomers became seniors by the thousands every day. If pres. Trump intends to do this, he will loose thousands of votes and this will only help whomever is the democratic choice to run. I really hope it isn't Sandrs, Warren or any other socialist in the mix of candidates. Your fan, Don Ryan P.S. I am Don's wife and he requested me to send this to you. Don't know if this is the right place to send it but I figured you might get it. Don doesn't know how to navigate a computer let alone turn one on so I was nominated. He hopes to hear your reply soon. The letter was written by him-I just typed it.

  • Mac Moody

    02/01/2020 12:28 PM

    What Republican is running for Senator in Maine against the current Senator(I refuse to name her for her lack of Party Unity). The Republican that is running for Senator in the State of Maine should be announcing his/her intentions so that we might be able to contribute to his or her campaign. We should not be helping the current Senator from Maine.

  • H Corey

    02/01/2020 08:22 AM

    The Democrats have already moved on. They want to invalidate the next presidential election. One representative let the cat out of the bag when he said we have to impeach the president or else he might get re-elected. Dems know President Trump will get re-elected. Dems will not have enough ballots stuffed into ballot boxes post election nor enough illegal voters to overturn the reelection of President Trump. Dems will have to invalidate a national election and destroy the US government as we now know it.

  • H Corey

    02/01/2020 08:16 AM

    The Democrats have already moved on. They want to invalidate the next presidential election. One representative let the cat out of the bag when he said we have to impeach the president or else he might get re-elected. Dems know President Trump will get re-elected. Dems will not have enough ballots stuffed into ballot boxes post election nor enough illegal voters to overturn the reelection of President Trump. Dems will have to invalidate a national election and destroy the US government as we now know it.

  • John Mac

    01/31/2020 08:33 PM

    Dershowitz destroyed the Democrats case in about 10 minutes. They simply got crushed by the truth and they now hate him as they hate Trump.
    Roberts should step down. He is not there to decide anything. If he can't read the question presented by a duly elected senator, then he should recuse himself. He rewrote the law and gave us Obamacare. He was a fraud in getting appointed to the court and if given the opportunity would have given these managers everything they wanted. He said he wouldn't make rulings way after it became clear the senate was not going to allow that to happen . He was dying to make those decisions and if he truly didn't want to overstep his duties, he would have made it clear immediately.
    Finally Collins is going to have a tough race here in Maine. Maine splits 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican and 1/3 independent. Collins lost a lot of Republicans years ago because of her liberal votes. She is a favorite of Democrats because she for all intense and purposes makes her seat a one party seat. ( liberals can't lose ). She is under attack by the libs after the Kavanaugh vote and will lose a lot of Democrat support...The independents here love Trump and she will lose some of them. She would lose more if they knew what she did, but they aren't really issue oriented, nor do they pay attention. Most of them just wander around aimlessly looking to be led by the strongest voice, thus the love for Trump. Frankly, I'm sick of holding my breath everytime there is an important vote. I think most conservatives are fine if she loses.

  • Sarah Menne

    01/31/2020 07:46 PM

    Heads up that some of the links online aren't working. They go to a blank page if I just click on them. But if I copy them into my browser then they open. It's not like this everywhere but on the "Democrats losing it..." webpage. Keep up the good work keeping us informed. Just wish millions more were reading your articles (with an open mind). My daughter's x-husband (who must now be a Democrat) asked me not to send him anymore Trump Propaganda after I forwarded your Christmas articles. ??? I always thought he was an intelligent man...guess I was mistaken.

  • Jim Stone

    01/31/2020 05:02 PM

    I want someone explain to me how Adam Schiff and his gangster’s can go before the Senate and the entire country and tell lie after lie and nothing will happen to them. Seems to me that’s not saying much for our system of justice!

  • Granny Anne

    01/31/2020 04:56 PM

    John Bolton is just another Benedict Arnold

  • Doug Moon

    01/31/2020 04:39 PM

    I am genuinely confused as to why Representative Schiff was allowed to get away with not answering the question put before him regarding Sean Misko et al(he responded, but didn't answer). Shouldn't a direct answer to a direct question have been required in a legal proceedings such as this? Or is this only political theater and has no real life consequences, such as removing a sitting President from office(sarcasm intended)?

  • Kay DeWitt

    01/31/2020 04:32 PM

    Right now I have such a REAL physical headache that I can only comment on one thing.... of the many things I could comment on...and to be kind TO my headache, I am going to copy, and paste, the one thing you stated that I have chosen TO comment on....which is where you state:

    "Nancy Pelosi, who has come unglued, said this: “The President’s team is there to dismantle the Constitution of the United States...well, he will not be acquitted; you cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. And you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and, and that...I think they disgraced themselves TERRIBLY...”

    This thinking is BEYOND pitiful! To say that the President's team for trying to take a stand against the hatred that AUTHORED this impeachment is being motivated by their desire to "dismantle the Constitution of the United States" is a statement from the pit of hell because it is a lie from the father of lies, Satan himself....
    because, in reality, what a Christian would want to "dismantle" is their hatred that is out to "dismantle" ...make null and void.....the Word of God!

    Her statement that you "don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and, and that...I think they disgraced themselves TERRIBLY...” makes no sense because, if you can't have a trial without witnesses and documentation, then why did they act that THEIR "documentation" ....their articles of impeachment...made for a slam dunk case!....

    AND IT IS THE DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE DISGRACED THEMSELVES BY BEING SO OBSESSED WITH THEIR HATRED FOR THEIR DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT THAT they cared more about destroying HIM than they did about all our kids who are BEING destroyed BY their same kind of DISGRACEFUL evil HATRED!!!

  • Stephen Rose

    01/31/2020 04:32 PM

    Democrats are totally nuts .
    I believe majority of democrats have committed treason both with the Iran deal and also with scandals like Ukraine.
    The democrats reduced our military while building other Countries military, thats treason in my book .
    Iran consistently chants death to America including their leaders so I believe under the constitution that makes anyone that voted yes to the Iran deal has committed treason.

    To get back to whats going on now .
    Investigating a political rival is not a crime . Even if true that Trump wanted an investigation on a rival there’s nothing wrong with that if he believed they did something wrong .
    The democrats are investigating Trump who is their political rival .
    So according to democrats own rules they would have to kick themselves out of office!
    Have a good day.

  • Harold Levi

    01/31/2020 04:09 PM

    I am greatly surprised that Lamar Alexander has crossed over to the “no witnesses” side. He is an establishment Republican (meaning RINO). No surprise that Susan Collins and Mitt Romney will vote for witnesses, both are hardcore RINOs.

    I pray this is over soon, my stomach can not tolerate much more of these unconstitutional games.

    If Trump is not our next President there will be a shooting war.

    May God have mercy on our country. We have allowed the dregs of humankind to take control and are now paying for it.

  • Paul Potter

    01/31/2020 03:35 PM

    Will the electorate ever go to work for the American people or are they just so tied up in TRUMP hate they can't think of us "We the people "

  • Richard Quitliano

    01/31/2020 03:02 PM

    The crux of the president's call centered around Crowdstrike... I would liked to have seen some questions about that!

  • Guy W Hulsey

    01/31/2020 02:51 PM

    I have pretty much watched this weeklong circus. I have to say I have never seen such a bunch of bold face liars, you can count on any time Schiff opens his mouth an insult or lie is going to come out. It is so clear that these guys hate Trump more than they care about truth and the country. It is all about power and control, they do not have it, Trump and the country is doing great and they cannot stand it. I hope the rest of the country and world realize what is going on.

  • Linda Meyer

    01/31/2020 02:32 PM

    After this is all over, President Trump can run on honesty. After all, he’s been investigated non-stop since election!! Re-elect Honest Don!

  • Anne Turner

    01/31/2020 02:19 PM

    I think there are a few in the country that are warming to POTUS because he has not let all of this horribleness keep him from his mission. Even if one is not crazy about his demeanor at times, he gets an A plus for holding up under the onslaught of the most vile of criticisms. Is there anyone nastier that Schiff, Nadler, Schummer, and Pelosi? She finally beginning to look her years. So the House managers only want witnesses that tell their side. Just like it was in the House. They Are not getting it. Even if T did it all, it’s not a crime. Why was Biden not impeached for doing worse and bragging about it? The Dems have gotten away with this tripe for so long they are spoiled. I do hope that should T be acquitted, he is gracious about it and doesn’t crow. He should be serious about it, and grateful to his party.

    That being said the House will just go back to finding another reason to impeach before the election. If Trump wins and we don’t get a GOP Congress it will be more of the same for four more years.

    Our Dem Senator Manchin from WV, generally fairly moderate, will be toast in this state if he votes to have witnesses, and/or to convict. He has thought about running for Governor again. Don’t think that scenario would work well for him.

  • Lowell Smith

    01/31/2020 02:12 PM

    The Dems will lose both the witness and convict votes but this is not the end. They want to do away with the constitution which prevents them from having absolute Power. That is the whole reason for this fiasco. On Monday February 4, it will start up in some other fascion. One other comment or question that I have not seen asked. Ukraine(Burisma) was given $53 Million tax payer $$ somewhere around 2010 or sometime after that, to help Ukrainian ( Burisma) energy development. So my comment, or question, Hunter Biden and his partner, actually received $2 million of our taxpayer $$

  • Verda Thompson

    01/31/2020 01:54 PM


  • Gary Digby

    01/31/2020 01:52 PM

    The only way to give the country relief from the outrageous attacks against President Trump and Republicans is to restore the House majority to the Republicans.

  • Carolyn Armbruster

    01/31/2020 01:47 PM

    Mike I sign your letter asking for 100,000 to let the Dems have a week, I have change my mind because I just do not TRUST the Dems. So would you please take my name off the letter you sent me.
    Carolyn Armbruster

  • Eddie Byrn

    01/31/2020 01:41 PM

    Chief Justice John Roberts refusing to let the name of the whistleblower get out? I think if only Robert Bork had been allowed on the Supreme Court that things today may have gone in a quite different direction than what has taken place.

  • Dolores

    01/31/2020 01:35 PM

    As I read this I am watching the impeachment in real time. Adam Schiff is reading evidence of presidential misdoings from the New York Times. I could die laughing. I switched to Syfy. I’d rather watch Godzilla takes Manhattan or whatever they’re showing. The New York Times. Really.

  • James Evart

    01/31/2020 01:34 PM

    I am amazed at the lengths the corrupt Democratic cabal will go to attribute now even motive to a President's actions who is doing what his office and job discription requires! What vile impudence and arrogance these overweening, self-appointed baffoons exhibit!
    May their actions heap upon them the retribution they deserve.