Shall the Senate now call ‘witnesses’? What, exactly, will such disgraced Swamp Dwellers have ‘witnessed’?

The U.S. Senate now approaches what would normally be the end of its deliberations on the thoroughly unconstitutional, totally lacking-in-due-process “case” which partisan House Democrats have constructed for removing popular and successful President Donald Trump (rather than waiting nine months to see if they can get him out through the far riskier strategy of, you know, ATTEMPTING TO BEAT HIM IN A REGULARLY SCHEDULED ELECTION. I mean, Hillary’s team did identify him as the EASIEST REPUBLICAN TO BEAT, right?)

The corruptocrats pretend their indictment — which cites no specific crime or misdemeanor — is about a six-minute phone call with the president of the Ukraine last summer, though many of these Democrats were declaring “We’re going to impeach the motherfucker” before they were sworn into office a year ago, and many voted AGAINST the military aid to Ukraine, THE AUTHORIZATION of which (not the “delivery” of which) they now fault Trump for “holding up” for a few weeks.

(See: .)

Does no one remember their attempts to sway and intimidate the Republican electors? Democrat/Bolshevik “Antifa” thugs rioting in the streets? Years and years of “Don’t you dare fire Doddering Bob Mueller; he’s going to prove you’re a Russian agent!”? Trying to get the cabinet officers to remove Trump as “mentally impaired”? “Do you want me to wear a wire”?

But the Democrats are never without a scheme. They claim they now want a NEW trial to repair the deficiencies in their initial, secret basement trial in the House — they want the Senate to call a bunch of witnesses — mainly bureaucrats fired by Trump for attempting to sabotage the agenda on which he was elected — to present a whole RANGE of new opinion and hearsay about how Donald Trump is engaged in a dastardly scheme to — get this — exercise the delegated powers of the President of the United States! Without ever violating a single court order, no matter how groundless on its face! How dare he?!

(This sounds ridiculous, but they know they can count on the four major television networks to cover such “revelations” with Wagnerian theme music and endless repetitions of “This looks like the beginning of the end for our new Hitler, the racist rapist Donald Trump! Orange man bad! And The walls are closing in!”)

Walls are closing in:

Heck, after covering every breathless moment of the endlessly repetitive Democrat blather of Schiff, Nadler, and Co. — even pre-empting prime-time programming — the networks cut away, refusing to show Americans the devastating presentations of the Trump defense team (THE FIRST TIME THEY’VE BEEN ALLOWED UP TO BAT), as former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi detailed the Biden family’s corrupt abuse of Joe Biden’s elected office to enrich themselves in the Ukraine, and as American hero (AND DEMOCRAT) Alan Dershowitz offered his inspired presentation on the total unconstitutionality of the current House impeachment.

And meantime,so-called “Supreme Court Chief Justice” John Roberts, who you’d think would have at least SOME familiarity with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right of any criminal defendant “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” systematically blocks any question that might reveal the name of the supposed “witness” (Eric Ciaramella, as already revealed in House testimony) whose hearsay evidence STARTED THIS WHOLE CHARADE!

All this despite the fact that such a “whistleblower” — especially if he can be shown to harbor political bias and animus towards his target (in this case, President Donald Trump) — has NO STATUTORY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF ANONYMITY:

(What the hell?)


So, on the “calling of witnesses,” there’s currently a lot of posturing going on in Washington.

Susan Collins sounded (as) sincere (as any of them can manage) re. her (correct) vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh. But did she really have to wrestle with that one? Was it really as difficult for her as undergoing dental surgery without anaesthetic? Or does she just feel she has to APPEAR “torn and conscience-stricken” to placate her New England constituents?

Does Mitt Romney really think he can get re-elected in Utah if he votes (or even “maneuvers”) to remove a successful, popular Republican president — starting with weeks and weeks of “witnesses”? Does he plan to move back to Massachusetts?

Remember, most Democrat “witnesses” never actually “witnessed” anything, and they’d now be appearing, FOR THE FIRST TIME, in a forum where a White House attorney could presumably stand up and say “Objection, Mr. Chief Justice, inadmissable as hearsay and opinion.”

At that point, what “witness” do Schumer and Romney have who could swing 18 to 20 Republican votes? (Or, if Manchin and Sinema and Jones and other red-state Democrats are lining up to acquit out of simple self-preservation, should we make that 20 to 24 . . . or more?)

I understand the terrible precedent Senate witnesses could set. (The Senate, instead of merely passing judgment on the “case for removal” presented by the House, would for the first time be agreeing to conduct its own, new, second, full trial. See:

But I’m trying to envision how this would work. I can’t believe the Taiwan Turtle or “Yesterday it was a tax, today it’s not” Roberts would allow the optics of permitting “some more Democrat witnesses, ONLY.”

If they allow “one each,” are the Democrats dumb enough (I know that’s a very low bar) to call former National Security adviser John Bolton without knowing exactly what he’d say? Concerning the recent report of an anti-Trump statement in his forthcoming book (presented, oddly enough, without a single direct quotation), he could easily say “The Times got it all wrong” — either because it’s true, or because he’s thinking of his future employability. What if he (or the White House) asserts executive privilege? (There couldn’t be a better test case than a White House NATIONAL SECURITY adviser.) What if an expedited ruling is sought from the Supreme Court to bar his appearance? Does it go to an 8-member court with Roberts recused? How long does THAT take?

I doubt White House attorneys Cipillone & Sekulow call Hunter Biden as their sole witness. He’s a space cadet who lies to get out of paying child support, claiming he’s broke when he made millions last year and he’s driving around in a new Porsche. He’s got about as much credibility as that Mafia don who used to show up in his pajamas. What if Hunter says “Thanks for inviting me here today; I respectfully invoke my Fifth Amendment right to not answer any questions”? THAT’S going to look great. “We now return you to our regularly scheduled re-run of ‘Leave It To Beaver.'”


For that matter, “one witness apiece” would be pretty weird. Five witnesses apiece? How would Cipillone & Sekulow prioritize a list of five? “Intelligence” Inspector General Atkinson, asked about why he changed his “whistlefraudster” form to allow Eric Ciaramella to report HEARSAY for the first time?

Whistlehoaxer Eric Ciaramella himself? (“How long, precisely, have you been working to ‘get Trump,’ Mr. Ciaramella, and on whose orders?”)

( )

Call CIA chief domestic saboteur Gina Haspel: “Do you disavow Eric Ciaramella’s work in trying to remove this president? Why haven’t you done so publicly? Do you consult with your mentor and butt buddy John Brennan on tactics in this ongoing effort to cripple the Trump presidency and overturn the 2016 election? When was the last time you spoke to John Brennan? To Jim Comey? Does the U.S. Constitution even authorize the existence of the CIA? If impeachment doesn’t work, do you plan to resort to a ‘Kennedy solution’?”

How about calling Adam Schiff as a witness, UNDER OATH, to ask about how Mary McCord and his other “Lawfare” staffers and “associates” worked to construct the whole “whistleblower” narrative? I’m betting President Volodymyr Zelensky of the Ukraine would probably show up if asked. Should former chief of staff to the U.S. Attorney General Mark Levin be called? He’s got expertise on Constitutional law. Former federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani, reading a two-hour opening statement on “Corruption in the Ukraine,” complete with great big flow charts full of American NAMES?

Why not call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? “You knew your so-called subpoenas had no force of law because up to that point you hadn’t held a full House vote authorizing impeachment, right? Then what’s all this crap about President Trump ‘defying’ a bunch of request letters that weren’t ‘subpoenas,’ at all? And didn’t you say, just a few months ago, that a purely partisan impeachment would be unwise and destructive?”

(Why did schiffty Schiff immediately withdraw his so-called “subpoenas” when they were challenged? Because House Democrats knew their demand letters aren’t real “subpoenas” — backed by a penalty under law — at all, and that their whole “defiance and obstruction” circus would fall apart if they allowed any court to rule on the question: .)

Even the Vindman twins could be interesting: “Captain Vindman, before you depart for your new posting, guarding that really important mess hall on Guam, could you explain to us why you think the President of the United States has to follow the “consensus” of some cabal of unelected bureaucrats when it comes to foreign policy? Did you leak details of the President’s phone call with President Zelensky to CIA operative Eric Ciaramella? Do you know what the penalty is for leaking classified information from the White House? Is it the proper role of a serving member of the U.S. military to conspire to bring down your commander-in-chief? In fact, doesn’t your oath require you to give your life before you allow that? Did you get an OK for those actions from further up your chain of command in the Pentagon? From whom, exactly?”

Before the Inquisition would happily torture its victims, it gave them one last chance to confess after being “shown the implements of torture.” So: show the Democrats the president’s list of witnesses. And don’t stop at eight. The House called 18 Democrat witnesses while allowing the president’s defenders to call none, zero, nada. So, to make up the balance, “Mr. Chief Justice, here’s our list of 36 witnesses, including four separate professors of Constitutional Law to address the President’s sole, exclusive, and total authority on matters of foreign policy. Some of the professors won’t be available till school ends in late May, but we believe we can probably get through most of these other names by then. . . .”

Remember, the White House team already gets to eliminate all “hearsay and otherwise inadmissable” stuff from the House file — which could take a couple of butchers with really big meat cleavers. Where would Schumer and his new pals Romney and Murkowski FIND five Democrat “witnesses” to offer anything but inadmissable opinion and hearsay? In exchange for which they’re going to allow the White House lawyers to conduct a week-long seminar on Ukrainian corruption, including naming EVERY U.S. SENATOR WHOSE FAMILY GOT RICH ON UKRAINIAN LOOT? (“Hey, we’d rather not have, but since you folks insist . . .”)

And finally, “OK, guys: To be fair, I’m thinking maybe a dozen witnesses for each side, call it another five weeks, and that’s after allowing two weeks for scheduling, I believe that takes us through the end of March. Too bad about some of you folks missing those presidential primaries . . .”

— V.S.

(One early reader, from , replies: “Great analysis, V.S. In terms of timing, I think the motions concerning admissibility of almost all of the Dem’s purported evidence would take weeks just by themselves. Court rulings on executive privilege could take months. Thinking through other issues, procedure and scheduling for example, I think an end of March wrap up is not likely.”

3 Comments to “Shall the Senate now call ‘witnesses’? What, exactly, will such disgraced Swamp Dwellers have ‘witnessed’?”

  1. Sherry Says:

    Alice in Wonderland bs from Trump’s lawyers. Don’t want King Trump at all. Don’t worry, he will be re-elected and continue to ruin the environment along with America. It’s the fall of Rome.

  2. Technomad Says:

    If the Democrats hadn’t spent the past three years in a screaming tantrum, yelling “REEEE! Orange man BAD! He took Hillary’s lollipop! He’s a RAY-CISS! He’s a NAZI!” I might take this more seriously. As things stand, they’ve destroyed whatever little credibility they ever had with this insanity.

    My own suspicion is that they know, down deep, that barring a miracle, Trump will be re-elected. And that means that he will almost certainly be appointing Ruth Vader Ginsberg’s replacement. She’s in poor health and aging. I wish her no ill, but I don’t think she’ll still be around after 2024.

    Without the courts as their plaything and weapon of first, last and only resort, the liberals won’t be able to impose a lot of their insane ideas on the rest of us. Bye-bye, disparate impact! Adios, affirmative action quota schemes! Au revoir, Roe vs. Wade! (While I’m a confirmed pro-choicer, I think that getting the Supremes in on that was a very bad idea. Letting the several state legislatures deal with it, as should have been done, would have been a far better idea.) Hello, universal Vermont Carry!

  3. Kingsnake Says:

    Liberals, the Democrat Party, the media, and the Deep State — but I repeat myself — have been throwing an EPIC four year long hissy fit. Colicky year olds in the grocery store behave more rationally.

    Reminds me of what a candidate for President once said: Something about not accepting the results of an election …