They should at least be nervous....

"All in all, the framers would probably agree that it's better to impeach too often than too seldom. If presidents can't be virtuous, they should at least be nervous." – Joseph Sobran

Today's defense was: No defense. They didn't address much – if any – of SCROTUS's actions today.

Once again, I was able to listen to only bits and pieces, so this first quick look reflects that.

Defense by Kenneth Starr. Obsequious obfuscation. "Aw, come on fellas! We have had just too many gosh-darned impeachments already! There was one just 20 years ago. We gotta stop this nonsense now!" Huh??  Guess he never met Joseph Sobran.

I was really confused as I listened to him evoke 1800s England in his argument that today's impeachment proceedings are unneeded.

And Oh the irony! Kenneth Starr was the one who wanted Bill Clinton's head on a stake over lying about a blow job in 1998. This unctuous scumbag has some chutzpah to call for the dismissal of charges, particularly abuse of power, when this was the centerpiece of his case against Clinton. We can only imagine the faces of the Senators as they listened to that windbag. WTF?

Hypocrite.

Defense by Jane Raskin. Ms. Raskin suggested that the House managers are using Rudy Giuliani as a shiny distraction. Really, Jane? Taking a page out of the boss's playbook, are you? OK, let's give her that. Let's ignore the whole Rudy thing. Behind that shiny bauble? SCROTUS himself. Case closed.

Defense by Pam Bondi and Eric Herschmann. BUT HUNTER BIDEN! I was confused when there was talk about events that occurred in 2015 and 2016. They seemed to laser-focused on doing the dirty work that IMPOTUS wanted Ukraine to do: besmirch the Bidens without evidence. These are ugly people.

If there was concern about an American citizen doing corrupt things overseas, then why were there no investigations before or after the Ukraine dust-up? Why didn't 45 call on official government entities to investigate, instead of his personal lawyer and the goons he had found under a rock?

Defense by Eric Herschmann. BUT OBAMA! Herschmann's tactic was to say what Obama's abuses of power were much much worse, going so far as to dig up the old hot-mic moment with Obama said to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, “This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility.” Again, a whole lot of nothing about a whole lot of stuff that has nothing to do with 45's corrupt acts with regard to Ukraine.

Defense by Alan Derschowitz. Flawed reasoning and misunderstanding the Constitution. Derschowitz continues to assert that impeachment can only be conducted for statutory crime. He talked a long time for what is simply a non-starter. It's not at all true, and we all agree. But just for kicks, a few little words about that: the Constitution reads, "high crimes and misdemeanors." What's the deal? The Atlantic tackles this thorny phrase.

And here is another article talking about the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," written in August, 2018. Interestingly, the author called out Alan Dershowitz's flawed reasoning even back in 2018, saying:

An aside: In his embarrassing recent “book” entitled The Case Against Impeaching Trump – which is mostly a collection of op-eds and transcripts of television interviews – Alan Dershowitz quotes, out of context, Blackstone’s general definitions of crimes and misdemeanors if this supported the proposition that, to be an impeachable, offense, an official’s act must be a “crime” in the ordinary criminal law sense. This is an elementary and almost ridiculous mistake. Blackstone’s treatment of impeachable “high crimes” and “high misdemeanors” is explicitly to the contrary. Dershowitz’s seemingly un-researched stance – that to fit within the category of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” conduct must be a literal criminal-law “crime” – is simply historically indefensible and intellectually irresponsible.

It's my theory that Dershowitz set out his thoughts early, knowing that SCROTUS would be someday impeached. He neatly set into motion the seeds to get him where he is now: in front of the TV cameras, where he loves to be, defending an absolute evildoer, the type he loves to defend, and putting his name in the history books by litigating in the third impeachment trial in American history.


What they didn't talk about: the mustache in the room. John Bolton.

Blockbuster news came out in the New York Times yesterday. An advance manuscript of John Bolton's book was leaked. What Bolton wrote about 45's scheme is damning.

Though it wasn't spoken about during the trial proceedings, Republicans are issuing double-speak. "The stuff from the book that was released were cherry-picked segments! It's nothing new! Besides, the president* says it's not true! Ignore the man behind the curtain!" 45's defense lawyer Mike Purpura said, "We do not deal in speculation."

Exactly, dudes. Do you not understand how this all works? Let me say it real slow so you can understand. You are exactly right. The book can not be admitted as evidence. A leaked manuscript is simply speculation. We need the author of the book to come and tell us what he wrote in the book. In front of the American people. Under oath. That's the way trials work.

Morons.

The Senate will be voting on witnesses on Thursday or Friday. There is talk about an idea that was floated to do a 1:1 exchange of witnesses: John Bolton for Hunter Biden. I don't understand why, if they want Hunter Biden so badly, why they don't just vote to call him. They need just a simple majority to do whatever they want. But maybe it's a way to save face in agreeing to hear from John Bolton. It's silly, though. Biden is not a material witness in the least, and bringing him into it just corrupts the U.S. Senate into another dirty-dealing puppet for the Villian-in-Chief.

Over the past several weeks, there was a poll quoted often that said that 71% of Americans want new witnesses and evidence. A new poll says that 71% of Republicans want witnesses. Along with 93% of Democrats and 81% of Independents.

Polls are powerful, but Senators listen most of all to their constituents. Thems th' ones that vote. They apparently don't care about abdicating their power to the Executive, but they care very much if they are seated in the Capitol come 2021. If you are in a red or purple state, contact your Senators and tell them that you want to hear from John Bolton and other witnesses. You can use Resistbot, 5 Calls, or call the Senate switchboard directly at 202-224-3121. And if you are in a blue state, call anyway. Tell them what you want regarding this or other issues; thank them for stewarding our ship. Call and be involved. This is government by the people.


Other stuff, impeachment and otherwise:

The conservative analyst and IMPOTUS sympathizer Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in the far-right National Review, admits that the Bolton revelations blow the defense up.

SCROTUS has not kept his thumbs still. The first day of the trial last week, he tweeted 142 times, a new record for most tweets in one day since taking office. Something is hitting close to home.

And his fervent thumbing is getting him into trouble. It's been suggested that this tweet regarding the content of Bolton's supposed testimony waives his executive privilege.  And another tweet was a not-so-thinly-veiled threat against Chairman Adam Schiff.

Here is a good description of what was happening in the Senate chambers during Schiff's Thursday closing. You saw the sketches, now read the words!

If you'd like a fuller description of the day's proceedings, I found this from ABC News.

And this gem I've been meaning to share from Vanity Fair. It describes TЯUMP's unfortunate relationship with the United States Constitution, which has mainly been conducted, it appears, in furtive back-alley encounters.

And finally, comic relief: