The second day of former president Donald Trump’s impeachment trial closed with a momentary controversy. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) objected to how a Democratic impeachment manager sourced information to him personally and asked that it be stricken from the record.

Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) had cited Lee while describing a phone call early in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot between then-President Donald Trump and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) about overturning the election. Lee had confirmed that Trump called him accidentally while seeking to talk to Tuberville, but the details of the ensuing conversation were not sourced to Lee in news reports. Cicilline had cited Lee’s confirmation of the call and added in the next sentence: “And on that call, Donald Trump reportedly asks Senator Tuberville to make additional objections to the certification process.”

Cicilline’s comments could be read to suggest the “reportedly” was based on Lee’s confirmation, though that generally refers to news reports. Regardless, lead House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) opted to withdraw Cicilline’s assertion, maintaining that the sourcing was “not critical in any way to our case.”
— Washington Post, 2/11/21

In fact, the “source” Cicilline cited made no mention of Senator Lee and indicated that President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani made the phone call to Tuberville, NOT President Trump himself. Aside from blatantly lying and assuming he wouldn’t be called out, it’s not clear why Cicilline tied Lee to the Giuliani-Tuberville phone call.

At approximately 7 p.m., Giuliani called newly sworn-in Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a staunch Trump ally, imploring him to stall the process. “I want to discuss with you how they’re trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you,” Giuliani said in a voicemail.

The problem for Giuliani? He left his message on the voicemail of another senator, who shared it with The Dispatch.
— The Dispatch, 1/6/21

The Dispatch did not reveal which senator actually got the call, neither did the Washington Post or Congressman Cicilline.

But what was also on sad was soon-to-be 81-year-old Sen. Patrick Leahy, president pro tempore of the Senate, presiding over the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, whose senility, cognitive decline, and incompetence was on full display to the world.

Aides having to tell the president pro tempore of the Senate what to do and say during an impeachment trial regarding blatant mischaracterizations by a House manager… seriously?

However, thanks to the beauty (and perils) of live television, the public got that rare glimpse of a media that chose sides long ago and are presenting the formalities with premeditated bias.

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos is well aware of the impeachment process as he was “senior advisor on policy and strategy” during the Clinton administration, thus is also well aware of what the public should know vice what could be potentially damaging.

The problem is fewer are devoting time to be misled….

The 20 percent dip in daytime viewership may be the best indicator that Trump’s impeachment won’t be must-see TV in its remaining week or so.
— New York Magazine, 1/23/20

It’s like watching the Olympics on taped delay: who really wants to watch a sporting event where the final score is already known?

Let’s be real; few expect President Trump to get a fair shake from the liberal media but these professionals should at least try to contain their bias and attempt to portray some modicum of equal coverage.

At least for a few seconds if possible….

There may be a reason why this McAuliffe isn’t with a major news outlet….

Since this appeared to be rather juicy, a few aggregating blogs and a member of the #Squad ran with it as gospel.

’21 Empty Seats’: More Than One-Third of GOP Senators Reportedly Left Room During Schiff’s Speech
People Are Calling Out Republicans for Breaking Senate Trial Rules by Leaving ’21 Empty Seats’
At one point more 1/5 of the Senate — 21 members — were out of the chamber
‘You should quit’: Rashida Tlaib blasts GOP senators for taking breaks from impeachment trial

When something damaging to Republicans appears online, verified or not, the usual suspects run with and blow it up even more.

Oddly enough in a random act of journalism, both CNN and MSNBC decided to verify via people who were actually in the room (Senators Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Schumer). Unfortunately for the media, they didn’t get the responses desired that could have given them more anti-Republican Senator scolding for breaking rules. Instead, it’s encouraged more falsities to be distributed by the base.

According to the rules, Senators are not allowed to leave the floor for any reason while the impeachment trial is in session.
— PoliticusUSA, 1/22/20

Not sure where that line appears but the Senate chamber could get really ripe, without appropriate precautions, had that “rule” not been a figment of the imagination.

When you know your audience will blindly accept your word and are too lazy to look things up themselves, misleading is easy. By the way, there’s no rule stating they have to be there in the first place. According to rules of impeachment decorum distributed to the Senate by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer….

• No live tweeting. Cell phones and other electronic devices should be left outside.

• No outside reading material. Only documents related to impeachment should be brought into the Senate chamber.

• No talking. Senators should refrain from speaking to their neighbors while the case is presented.

• Hit pause on presidential campaigns. Senators should plan to be in attendance at all times during the proceedings.
— US News & World Report, 1/16/20

The only official guidance issued makes no reference to attendance, mandatory or casual. The closest we get is….

At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial of an impeachment the doors of the Senate shall be kept open, unless the Senate shall direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon its decisions.
— Senate Impeachment Rules, March 2, 1868

But that didn’t take long from things being taken an ominous step or two further.

I’m not sure the chief justice is fully aware of just how rare it is, how extraordinary it is for the House members to be able to command the attention of senators sitting silently for hours or even for minutes, for that matter. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the morning starts out every day with the sergeant-in-arms warning you that if you don’t, you will be in prison.

It’s our hope that when the trial concludes and you’ve heard us and you’ve heard the president’s counsel over a series of long days that you don’t choose imprisonment instead of anything further.
— Rep. Adam Schiff, 1/22/20

It’s clear Congressman Schiff is again ad-libbing as he’s taking that “imprisonment” thing way out of context to use as a partisan club.

When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate, and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the presiding officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant-at-arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: “All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against.”
— Senate Impeachment Rules, March 2, 1868

So, we have another manufactured controversy meant to inflame the Democrat base; a base relied upon to believe what they’re told.

Mitch McConnell won’t allow recording on the Senate floor during the trial, so there is no video of the Senators, but other Senators saw it happening….
— Daily Sound & Fury, 1/23/20

The upside is that sometimes the truth comes out, live, where it can’t be “edited for time” or omitted altogether.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a top ally of President Trump, announced Thursday morning that he will retire from Congress at the end of his term. Meadows, a four-term lawmaker who represents part of western North Carolina, said in a statement that he “struggled” with leaving what he has long considered a “temporary job.”
— The Hill, 12/19/19

Whatever the future holds for Congressman Meadows, it’ll surely be more gratifying than having to deal with the cesspool that is Washington, D.C. But for those who know of the culture of self-serving leeches the populate the Hill, one can understand why Meadows may rightfully asking, “Who needs this shit?”

The upcoming John Durham report (with possible indictments) should be scaring the crap out of the fat, happy and comfortable in the federal government cabal, but we’ve all seen how the bureaucracy circles the wagons and protects itself while cavalierly manipulates exonerating evidence to railroad those who are politically opposed to them. These people, who live very comfortable lives on the payroll or pensions, sleep well at night while dutifully destroying reputations, livelihoods, bank accounts, and expose others to possible jail time but are given safe haven to play the victim when their activities could put them into the jeopardy they’ve exposed others to.

It’s safe to say NO politician on the Republican side could endure the shit Donald Trump has had to endure. Trump knew what was coming and it’s clear he revels in the daily obstacles thrown his way on a daily basis by the Democrats, their media, and perpetually aggrieved Never Trump so-called conservatives. It could be safe to say he may even enjoy it because he’s actually proving how worthless politicians and the embedded government employees promise and are in no hurry to ever deliver.

Donald Trump is reacting to impeachment just as we have come to expect. It is all about him personally, this is a personal insult, that he’s suffered a personal injury. He is not thinking about how best to lead the nation out of this crisis. He is not thinking about healing wounds, or unifying the body politic and rehabilitate himself as president. He is seething in raw anger and wants cold-hearted “revenge” upon people he sees as his enemies.
— Daily Sound & Fury, 12/19/19

Isn’t it funny how liberals feel entitled to inflict as much damage to a Republican as they can imagine but get all bent when the cannon is aimed back at them?

In the real world outside the Beltway, businesses try to destroy their competition. This concept is not new to Donald Trump and the top dog is always the target. Impeachment can also be seen as a personal validation that he’s created an engine no Democrat will ever be able to replicate thus all crosshairs are on the leader.

President Trump has overachieved, between the historic economic numbers, record-low unemployment in all demographics and groups, foreign trade policy where Americans are the last to be screwed, NO new wars were hundreds of thousands of Americans are sent to foreign theaters with vague terms of engagement, and a border where illegal immigration numbers are declining. Trump’s communication style is not nuanced where every sentence has to be parsed, was focused grouped and distributed to friendly media outlets for safe, partisan distribution.

While he’s repeatedly called a liar by the media, the case can be made that it’s not easy having every factoid readily available when you have dozens of microphones in your face and I defy anyone reading this to assert they’d be able to be 100% accurate in everything said publicly. But this is also the same media that selectively edits, omits, and editorializes against those they ideologically despise and covers for those they fawn over, assuming the American people are too stupid to tabulate their daily inconsistencies.

Democrats are dancing in the streets over impeaching Donald Trump; some stupidly assuming that Mike Pence is now the President of the United States, requiring a basic civics lesson not provided in our annual $700 billion dollar-plus public school system.

The vote means that Trump has been “impeached” and the case heads to the Senate. Trump still serves as president. It’s up to the Senate to hold a trial and decide whether to remove him.
— The ultimate guide to the Donald Trump impeachment saga

Only Donald Trump could see the adjective of being an impeached president as a badge of honor. The results of his policies are historic and provide a contrast that no Democrat running for president can even dream of maintaining, in fact everyone knows he or she will destroy the state of the nation as it stands today. A president with these kinds of numbers will win reelection and everyone knows it. The only remaining option is to either remove or severely damage President Trump.

It’s too late for Democrats to tread carefully. They pulled the trigger on impeachment and don’t think President Trump didn’t expect this when he first considered running, winning, draining the swamp, achieving beyond all expectations, calling out the media, and the response that would be coming. He’s probably enjoying this shit, deeply flattered to the extent he’s been targeted for ultimate political destruction and can’t hardly wait to take things to the next level.

In November 2020, the Americans who’ve been dismissed by this fiasco will have their say in the process and let’s hope defeated and demoralized Democrats will be sent packing asking, “Who needs this shit?”

Most officers earn respect. However, some demand it.

Most officers observe and respect the rules. However, some believe the rules apply to everyone except themselves.

For example, we have Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman who appeared before the House Intelligence Committee as a witness for the Democrat impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump on November 19, 2019.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman violated the chain-of-command, embellished his credentials for a House committee for public consumption, betrayed the expectation of security by sharing the contents of an official phone conversation between President Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, all the while having to be reminded that the President of the United States sets our foreign policy, not unelected government employees and any disagreement Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman may have had with tactics are not subject to immediate redress and action by the president.

And whatever you do, don’t challenge or criticize Lt. Col. Vindman on the field of battle known as Twitter.

Memorable military quotes.

“I have not yet begun to fight.” Admiral John Paul Jones, 1779
“Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.” Admiral David Farragut, Battle of Mobile Bay, 1864
“Nuts.” General Anthony McAuliffe, Battle of the Bulge, 1944
“I felt marginalized by his tweets.” Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, impeachment testimony 2019
— Rush Limbaugh, 11/21/19

Some people need be reminded of their place in the grand scheme of things.

Nadler quotes Founders’ warnings in impeachment inquiry
Founding Fathers would be ‘horrified’: Legal experts testify Trump should be impeached
The Founders Would Have Impeached Trump for His Ukraine-Related Misconduct
We are finally on the path to Trump impeachment and saving what our Founders gave us
The Founding Fathers would have impeached corrupt Trump in a New York minute
Robert Reich: The Founding Fathers Would Have Impeached Trump

But it was not long ago (and could rear an ugly head again at any convenient time) when these same liberals considered the Founders racist, white men and the national discourse we have today is a direct result of their failed thinking.

Founding Fathers, Founding Villains
NEA Throws Evil Shade On Founding Fathers
There’s No Defending Founding Fathers Who Practiced Slavery
5 Stories That Prove The Founding Fathers Were Total Maniacs
Did the Founding Fathers Screw Up?
What’s the Difference Between Confederate Leaders and Slave-owning Founding Fathers?
Sexual abuse of slaves by students at Founding Father’s university revealed by historians
The founding fathers were evil

Impeachment is only one topic where the genius of the Founders are dashed when not in line with a Democrat agenda. The wisdom of the Electoral College, for example, was the perfect system to liberals when Bill Clinton lost the popular vote in 1992 but won the presidency based on the established Electoral College process. When liberals win, the Electoral College was perfectly crafted and implemented.

A key reason the founders wanted the electoral college: To keep out demagogues and bullies
The Founders Knew What They Were Doing with the Electoral College
Electoral college reflects wisdom of Founding Fathers
The Electoral College Was Meant to Stop Men Like Trump From Being President

However, the Founders’ brilliant system was deemed antiquated and very flawed when Hillary Clinton failed to meet its benchmark.

Not Your Founding Fathers’ Electoral College
The Electoral College Has Been Divisive Since Day One
The electoral college is a failure. The Founding Fathers would probably agree.
Founding Fathers distrusted popular vote to pick a president
The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
All of the Arguments for Keeping the Electoral College are Stupid.

No mention of the liberal Democrat “disenfranchisement” dog whistle when they lose but that’s ultimately what they wish to do, whether it’s devising ways to assure their elections or justifying the removal of a uber-successful president they know they can’t beat at the ballot box and need an insurance policy. When they can’t rely on the American people to do what they want, they find end-arounds and base their actions on what they say the Founders foresaw and defended against.

The Founding Fathers came from all professions of the day. They weren’t professional politicians and may or may not have not been able to predict and prepare for the swamp we have today, but when Democrats praise or hate on the Founders, you can be sure it’s because of something they want; not what’s necessarily best for the country.

Rep. Maxine Waters describes herself as being on the “front line” in the desire of many Democrats to forcibly reverse the results of a presidential election and impeach the President of the United States; for yet-to-be-determined “high crimes and misdemeanors” and her personally-defined threshold of Donald Trump’s not being fit to lead.

Listen to the words of Congresswoman Waters in 1998 during the Bill Clinton impeachment hearings where she was quite worried about the collateral damage done to others swept into the progress, the fact the charges were relatively vague and not what could be officially determined to be “high crimes”.

If one were to substitute her references to “Clinton” with “Trump”, her arguments against impeachment dance in the realm of hypocrisy.

Listen to all of the things Rep. Waters cared about in 1998: the “hatred”, the “American soldiers”, “partisan impeachment”, the “American public”, “private lives opened up” and “destroyed”, “the people’s House”, a “coup d’etat”, “extremists”, “rule of law”, “trumped-up charges”….

However, today Waters apparently cares little about the financial ruin of General Michael Flynn and others at the hands of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Waters apparently cares little about the possible removal of a “populist president” who has managed to produce bonafide results for the American people despite the resistance of the normal slow-motion process of fat-and-happy federal politicians and employees who’ve produced nothing but a lethargic mechanism that taxpayers are forced to support.

Waters apparently cares little about the American people who voted for Donald Trump and believes she can overturn the results of an election just because she doesn’t like his personality and methods.

This is (again) about Democrat power and Auntie Maxine’s quest for popularity and relevance. Just take a look at the stock market since the Democrats retook the House. It’s not pretty, but the welfare of the American people has always been a low priority when it comes to people like Rep. Waters. It’s always been about Maxine first.

Just look at the ongoing state of decline of Waters’ districts since she was first elected in 1990; a district today she’s had no desire to live in for many years.

Impeachment isn’t enough.

Impeachment would remedy Trump”s “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But impeachment would not remedy Trump’s unconstitutional presidency because it would leave in place his vice president, White House staff and Cabinet, as well as all the executive orders he issued and all the legislation he signed, and the official record of his presidency.

The only response to an unconstitutional presidency is to annul it. Annulment would repeal all of it – recognizing that such appointments, orders, rules, and records were made without constitutional authority.
— Robert Reich, 8/24/18

The problem with such irrational thinking is it comes back to bite you.

The most recent example came thanks to former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, first in 2005.

If all goes as planned, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) will rise after several days of debate beginning today over one of President Bush’s judicial nominees and call for an end to Democrats’ delaying tactics. The presiding officer will then rule in his favor.

Democrats will protest the ruling and ask for a vote to overturn it. The Republican leader will seek to table that appeal. If Frist and the GOP majority prevail, a long tradition of filibustering will be narrowed and a new precedent will be set allowing the Republicans to force a vote on a nomination with a simple majority instead of three-fifths of the Senate.

But Democrats contend that the Republicans are essentially breaking the rules to change the rules. “If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-NV). “The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington.”
— Washington Post, 5/18/05

But Harry Reid’s position began to unravel when Democrats assumed the majority….

In 2008, Reid continued to condemn the fact that the Republicans even contemplated using the nuclear option: “The Senate was set up to be different, that was the genius, the vision of our Founding Fathers. That’s why you have the ability to filibuster, and to terminate filibuster. They wanted to get rid of all of that,” Reid said.

Then he was asked if he would ever consider invoking the nuclear option himself: “As long as I am the leader, the answer’s no,” Reid promised. “I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country.”

Fast-forward to 2013. Now, Democrats held the White House and a Senate majority. The Republican minority had been stalling nominations and appointments by Obama, including filibustering the nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. Senate Democrats decided to go nuclear after the Senate GOP made clear that they had no intention of allowing three vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to be filled.
— PolitiFact, 11/22/13

But the most fun example came courtesy of the super-majority Democrats in the Massachusetts Legislature.

In 2004, the state’s junior senator, John Kerry, was the Democratic presidential nominee. Party leaders knew that if Kerry won in November, state law allowed the governor — then Republican Mitt Romney — to appoint Kerry’s successor, and that person would presumably be a Republican. So, the Democratic leadership of the legislature drew up a measure to strip the governor of his senatorial appointment power.

The measure passed both chambers and was vetoed by Romney. The Democrats then muscled a two-thirds majority to override the veto. Of course, Kerry never won the presidency, but the law remained on the books.

Fast-forward to 2009. Democrats realized that the law they had enacted in 2004 forced the state to have only one senator for roughly five months — and after Kennedy’s death, that meant the state would be short one senator. From a political standpoint, that meant the U.S. Senate would have one less Democrat at a time when a Democratic president was trying to reach a 60-vote threshold to enact landmark legislation on Kennedy’s signature issue, health care. And this time, the governor, Deval Patrick, is a Democrat and presumably would appoint someone from his party.

So legislators quickly passed legislation that would keep the special election but still allow the governor to appoint an interim senator to serve until the special election. The measure passed both chambers, and on Sept. 24, 2009, Patrick named former Democratic National Committee chairman Paul Kirk, a Kennedy family friend, as the interim senator.
— Politifact, 9/24/09

So, if Robert Reich and Democrats really want to strip Donald Trump of his presidency and annul all of his accomplishments, fine.

But politics continues to remain a rather consistently cyclical thing and one day, there will be a Democrat in the White House; a Democrat who may do really bad things. If Democrats do manage to have President Trump’s presidency stripped, precedent will be set and there will be calls to do the very same thing to that Democrat, deserved or not.

Who’ll be screaming like a stuck pig then, Robert?