https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-defenders-have-no-defense-11574382421
For those who can’t access WSJ, I will supply a quote from Peggy Noonan’s opinion.
Ms. Noonan was a speech writer for both Reagan and Bush the Elder. She has written 5 NYT bestsellers and has a pretty solid conservative resume.
Although she criticized Vindman, not for his testimony, but rather for his “attitude”, Noonan did make clear that the testimony of Sondland, a Trump megadonor, supporter, friend and appointee was damning to say the least. Especially when backed up with respected career diplomats such as Hill, et.al. These testimonies also give great credence to the closed door depositions as a tried and true method of not allowing coordination among witnesses.
“As to impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?
Procedures, rules and definitions aren’t fully worked out in the Senate. But we are approaching December and the clock is ticking. A full-blown trial on charges most everyone will believe are true, and with an election in less than a year, will seem absurd to all but diehards and do the country no good.
So the reasonable guess is Republican senators will call to let the people decide. In a divided country this is the right call. But they should take seriously the idea of censuring him for abuse of power. Mr. Trump would be the first president to be censured since Andrew Jackson, to whom his theorists have always compared him. In the end he will probably be proud of a tightening of the connection.”
I agree that censure is the route, not a trial. Either way, the Trump supporters are not going to care. But at least they won’t have a weapon of an ineffective trial to use next year.
The facts are out, let the country decide if this is the direction our nation wants to go at the ballot box.
IMHO
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
All I have heard from the GOP are the White House talking points. Not one member of Congress from the Republican Party seems capable of independent thought. The fear of being “primaried” by someone MORE supportive of Trump scares them into blindly following the lead of the WH. It is a scary thing these so called representatives are doing.
Oh, and the supporters of Trump are going to attack Ms. Noonan now and also call the WSJ “fake news”. Wait for it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
No doubt. Any criticism of this regime is “treason”.
And censure is no sure thing either. Particularly since the defense by the Republicans has gone from “he didn’t say that” to “screw you, we don’t care”.
Its amazing the number of witnesses that were “great” people that Trump now has no idea who they were.
It reminds of his assertions that the instructors at Trump U were “hand picked” by him, but he could not name a single one.
Our president is either senile or a bald faced liar. Probably both. Neither quality is reassuring to say the least.
LikeLiked by 3 people
We’re to the point where the “nothing to see here” crowd needs to answer one question: if extorting a foreign power (with taxpayer money) to influence our electoral process isn’t grounds for removal from office…..what is??
LikeLiked by 2 people
The right has already answered you question.
“Screw you and the horse you rode in on. We don’t care what the regime does so long as we stay in office. Period.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
No argument, but I’m encouraged by the number of Independents (non-knuckle draggers) that clearly see the corruption and recognize that a line needs to be drawn has slowly increased.
2020 election will be very interesting….
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “We’re to the point where the ‘nothing to see here’ crowd needs to answer one question: if extorting a foreign power (with taxpayer money) to influence our electoral process isn’t grounds for removal from office…..what is??”
My answer is simple. Show me how anything Trump has done was intended to “influence our electoral process.”
More specifically, show me how Trump’s actions could not have been for any other purpose.
If that can’t be done, then I’m pretty comfortable with the “nothing to see here” position.
LikeLike
The transcripts from both the closed door depositions and the public testimonies have all the details you are asking for.
In spades.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mr. Roberts continues with his counterfactual obtuseness. He, like Trump, cannot defend what has been stated, so they just say it never happened. When several others, with direct knowledge of the situation, have said, “Oh, yes it did.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The transcripts from both the closed door depositions and the public testimonies have all the details you are asking for.”
If they did, I wouldn’t be in the ‘nothing to see here” camp.
Can you be more specific?
LikeLike
After a week of testimony?
If you can’t see the problem, nothing I say is going to make a whit of difference in your opinion.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “If you can’t see the problem…”
If you can’t state the problem, maybe there isn’t one. You might be seeing things that aren’t there.
LikeLike
@Roberts
“More specifically, show me how Trump’s actions could not have been for any other purpose.”
We now KNOW beyond any doubt that Mr. Trump lead Mr. Pence, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Sondland, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Sondland in a coordinated extortion effort to compel the newly elected President of Ukraine to personally make a public statement announcing an investigation of the Bidens and of the already disproved theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia who hacked the DNC servers. We now KNOW that to put pressure on Zelensky, sorely needed defense assistance approved by Congress was blocked. We KNOW that bribery is defined in the law as demanding anything of value in exchange for the performance of a public duty. And, we KNOW that the Constitution lists bribery as an impeachable offense.
This public announcement of such investigations serves NO PURPOSE except to discredit one of Trump’s political opponents. THAT is something of great value to the President, personally. It is up to YOU (and him) to provide a legitimate PUBLIC purpose for these actions. Keeping Trump in office is NOT such a purpose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “It is up to YOU (and him) to provide a legitimate PUBLIC purpose for these actions.”
Not really. Our Constitution and legal system don’t work that way.
But I can provide a “legitimate PUBLIC purpose” for Trump’s actions, if you require it: Ukraine has a history of corruption; the president is supposed to avoid giving taxpayer-funded aid to corrupt countries.
The things you claim to “KNOW” are in fact all merely presumptions.
LikeLike
My “presumptions” are based on what is now a mountain of evidence.
You are simply hopeless. And actually, kind of sad.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “I agree that censure is the route, not a trial. Either way, the Trump supporters are not going to care.”
I’m a Trump supporter who doesn’t care, if I understand what you mean by that. Ms. Noonan to the contrary, I have seen no evidence of an impeachable offense, and see no utility or value in a Congressional censure.
President Trump’s “offense” seems to be that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, among other things, and used the powers of his office to make it happen. If the Bidens were criminals, no one would object to the president’s actions. But since we’re all pretending the Bidens are saints, objections abound.
That’s the whole movie — the freak show — in one paragraph.
The heaqrings in the House lead naturally to a full-blown trial in the Senate. But not happily, as our diplomatic agencies have revealed themselves to be staffed by self-important toadies who trade in gossip, rumor, influence and presumption. Our diplomats and foreign service officers have lost credibility.
LikeLike
“… as our diplomatic agencies have revealed themselves to be staffed by self-important toadies who trade in gossip, rumor, influence and presumption. Our diplomats and foreign service officers have lost credibility.”
Yeah, all of our diplomatic corps are bad news. Your opinion is, of course, your opinion.
As Ms. Hill so effectively put it when a GOP congressman finished insulting the witnesses: we were called in to give our facts as we knew them. And if you noticed, the career folks did not change their testimonies from their closed door hearings. Whereas Trump’s appointed megadonor did. Three times.
If the Trump regime wanted more first hand testimony, then let Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, et.al. come forth.
And this is, of course, my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of Ms Hill, did you note that she confirmed what I have been saying about the Russian interference from the beginning, that the Russians were not trying to help Trump, but instead to cast doubt on whoever won so they would not be able to govern effectively.
And you Democrats gave the Russians exactly what they wanted.
LikeLike
Casting doubt was a by-product. The intent via emails, meetings, ads and other tactics was to get Trump elected.
And they had help from someone in the form of Comey who obviously hurt Clinton immensely.
And help from Trump who, from day one, divided us into “us v. them” with his incessant insults, bigoted re-tweets, hatred for Hispanics, citizen or not, enemies of the people, and the list goes on.
With Trump, Putin just needed to nudge him a bit, then sit back and sip his Vodka.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your argument is with Fiona Hill, not me. She explicitly said the Russians did not care who won so long as they were not able to govern effectively.
LikeLike
RE: “If the Trump regime wanted more first hand testimony, then let Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, et.al. come forth.”
Perhaps they will, in the Senate. At that time they will be able to testify directly on the articles of impeachment, which are looking more and more like a flimsy charade.
LikeLike
…”which are looking more and more like a flimsy charade.”…
That has been your opinion since the beginning. You have completely ignored the testimony of the professionals (or adults, if you will) involved in diplomatic efforts wrt to Ukraine. You believe that Trump explicitly said “no quid pro quo” BEFORE the House started investigating the complaint. He did not tell Sondland that until AFTER it came out that his phone call with Zelenskiy was being investigated. The aid to Ukraine was not released until AFTER it became clear that the phone call was a request for a quid pro quo.
As far as testifying goes, would it not make more sense for the players be deposed PRIOR to the trial? The GOP was allowed to call witnesses that could present exculpatory statements concerning Trump. They wanted to talk to Hunter Biden, who had nothing to do with the allegations against Trump. They could put an end to the inquiry by providing honest answers to the investigators of the House Committee. Unless those honest answers prove exactly what has been admitted to already by Trump and Mulvaney. I would surmise they don’t want to testify because if they tell the Trump side of the story, they could end up joining Roger Stone for lying to Congress.
All, of course, just my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t forget ms Chalupa, who Schiff would not allow the Republicans to call in their witch hunt.
LikeLike
RE: “You have completely ignored the testimony of the professionals (or adults, if you will) involved in diplomatic efforts wrt to Ukraine.”
Guessing again, Mr. Green?
In reality I watched the better part of the hearings on TV over the last two weeks. Here’s something I noticed. Every single witness was asked point blank, “Did you see or do you have any direct knowledge of an impeachable offense?” And every single witness said, No.
I also noticed that every single witness was careful not to claim to know the president’s mind WRT the events they were testifying about.
So, by witness testimony, we have no evidence of intention to commit a high crime, and no evidence of a high crime itself.
If there’s something you think I missed, please let us know.
LikeLike
You missed the truth. The willfully blind often do so.
Sondland was asked was it a quid pro quo. His answer was yes and everyone knew about it.
Timing of Trump’s actions and words show his mind. Hand in cookie jar, tell them I want nothing. Oh, and release the aid.
Counterfactual to the end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “You missed the truth.”
You are welcome to tell us what the truth is, if you can.
RE: “Sondland was asked was it a quid pro quo. His answer was yes and everyone knew about it.”
I said exactly that almost a month ago. Such things are normal, as Sondland testified.
RE: “Timing of Trump’s actions and words show his mind.”
So you say, but it is not enough. The timing of Trump’s actions and words also show that he had no intention of committing a high crime, if you are capable of reading his mind.
LikeLike
Counterfactual horse shit. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Pissing contest skunk. Gotta stop.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I humbly disagree.
Our democracy has suffered greatly from the failure to prosecute crimes of the executive branch over the years. Ford’s pardon of Nixon was a whitewashing of the rule of law. It did not heal the country, which Ford used as the excuse to do it, it created a tremendous fracture. Carter’s funding of arms to Osama Bin Laden was without congressional approval. This was further exacerbated during the Reagan-Bush era: the pardon of Iran-Contra figures, and the failure to prosecute Reagan and Bush was really the end of any check on the executive branch. We will never know what deal was made to keep the hostages locked up until the election was over. We will never know what funds and arms were given to Saddam Hussein
Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress – ridiculous. He should have been impeached for his misuse of executive privilege and over-reach in Bosnia. By the time GWB came around, torture was implemented a foreign policy, and the rule of law was gone. Obama’s unchecked use of executive privilege, especially in regard to the Fast and Furious operation and the decision not to prosecute Eric Holder after having been found in contempt of Congress, was a horrible decision. Regardless of Moscow Mitch’s intransigence, Obama had no business using executive orders to override the rule of law.
We cannot use the excuse that “well, all the others got away with it, why prosecute Trump”. This has to stop. The most insidious part of this is that even the judiciary branch now has basically thrown in the towel, allowing unchecked power to not only the executive branch of the government, but to the executive branch in all walks of life.The US Tax Court is now a joke; tax evasion by the 1% and corporations now goes unchecked. Rampant monopolistic practice and discrimination is now acceptable. and unchecked aggression by law enforcement and unconstitutional laws allowing that conduct are met with shrugged shoulders.
Impeach him and convict him. That’s the constitutional remedy for what Trump has done.
LikeLike
Trump won’t be convicted. We need 14 GOP Senators to grow a spine. Not enough calcium in Congress.
I agree that Congress has conceded way to much power to the presidency. And it goes back decades. But so long as it served the economically powerful to do so, it just got worse. So presidential overreach is now the norm. And Trump has just pushed it to extremes by his willful ignorance of both the Constitution and American values.
Given all that, reality is that change will never happen so long as the right has power. They are well on the way to pack our judiciary at all levels with ideologues. So that leaves the other two branches.
“Keep your eyes on the prize” is infinitely more important than a momentary “win” that may, in fact, keep the corrupt in power for years to come.
Put another way, it took us almost 50 years to get to this mess, it will take time to undo. Trump was the wake up call as to what can happen when we elect a street thug who packs his administration with family, FOX and Friends, and sycophants looking for ways to undo our nation for power and money.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump is guilty of abuse of his powers ONLY IF Joe Biden is above the law.
If Biden was corrupt while Vice President, everything Trump has done was his duty as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. In fact, even if there was only probable cause to think Biden was corrupt, it was Trump’s duty to investigate.
Running for President does not make Biden above the law.
If the results of the investigation also happened to benefit Trump, so what, there is nothing wrong with benefiting from the truth coming out.
LikeLike
“If Biden was corrupt while Vice President,”…
That is what is referred to in yoga as a “VERY BIG STRETCH”! There has been zero evidence showing that being even remotely true. And it goes to the new post I just put up concerning how Fox News tries to drive the narrative on stories that are not going Trump’s way.
No one has claimed that Biden is above the law. And if pushing US and other western countries agendas is cause for corruption, then you would have to go way further back in history than Joe Biden.
Desperate statements as this show how badly things are going for Trump and those of you who believe him. It is said to see someone I consider a patriotic American who stands for the Constitution on a regular basis to ignore the criminality of this presidency.
LikeLike
Sure, and Hunter Biden got that $83,333 a month job from Burisma while is Dad was controlling economic development aid to Ukraine purely on merit.
That is corruption that you can smell across an ocean.
LikeLike
No, it is not corruption, it is bad optics. If you have proof of actual corruption, let’s see it. Otherwise you are following the Fox News/Trump playbook. And 12,000 lies are VERY telling.
Keep in mind that the fired prosecutor was not investigating ANYTHING. No Burisma, no oligarchs, nothing. In fact, the investigation into Burisma went dormant because he wasn’t doing it. It could be picked up by a new prosecutor.
Also, there are channels to request investigations into American citizens by foreign authorities. Why not follow them? A simple request from the AG to the Ukrainian government to follow up on information developed in the US on Biden. But there was no ongoing investigation into Biden in the US, was there? And why not? Because there was nothing to investigate.
Your desperation to protect and defend Trump is really quite sad.
LikeLike
The prosecutor was not going after Burisma BECAUSE Hunter Biden was on the board, and his Dad controlled billions of dollars of economic development aid which was going right into the pockets of the oligarchs who controlled the Ukrainian govt at that time. Hunter Biden was their protection.
What is sad is that you pretend that there was any non-corrupt reason to pay Hunter $83,333 a month for a job he didn’t know how to do in a country where he did not speak the language.
LikeLike
That is conspiracy based horse hockey. The prosecutor was ineffective and investigating NOTHING. No investigations into Ukrainian corruption of any kind. That was the reason for the WESTERN WORLD’s desire to have him removed.
As far as Hunter getting that gig, international corporations put “names”on their boards all of the time. As I stated, it is bad optics, but unless there is actual evidence that there was corrupt intent (like withholding Congressionally approved military aid in order to dig up non-existent dirt on a political opponent) , you got bupkes!
LikeLike
You don’t have to cross the ocean.
Sniff, sniff…Jared, is that you?
If so, Jared could you please ask your financial saviors in Riyadh if they need anything? Troops? Missiles for the kids in Yemen?
Don, if you truly believe that Trump was interested in justice and that the Ukrainians are hiding a server for the Russian founder of Crowdstrike I fully understand your position.
I think it is wrong and a bit delusional.
IMHO of course.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump is a counter-puncher.
The Democrats have been putting him through hell for 3 years, and exposing the Democrats as corrupt and dishonest by showing the world their collusion with a foreign government in the 2016 election would be sweet revenge for him.
Justice for the US would be a nice side effect, but hitting back was probably what drives him.
What I don’t think is that he was thinking at all of any benefit in 2020. I don’t think he expected Biden to last that long anyway.
If Trump expected to have Biden as his opponent, he would have saved this for AFTER Biden had the nomination. The timing is way off for using the Hunter scandal for election advantage.
LikeLike
“If Trump expected to have Biden as his opponent, he would have saved this for AFTER Biden had the nomination. The timing is way off for using the Hunter scandal for election advantage.”
Couldn’t wait. Holding the military aid until next summer would not have been possible. Trump knew that in order to be an effective bribe, or quid pro quo, to force dirt on Biden and the phony Crowdstrike conspiracy investigation, he had the leverage now, not later.
Hunter did not get the board seat on his expertise. He got it like all board members everywhere. Connections. Our boards are full of other CEO’s who are not even in the same field as the company they are directing. But they have contacts for financing, market penetration and, wink wink, most important compensation for the boss.
If all of Trump’s actions were on the up and up, why all the subterfuge, hiding the transcript, refusing to let his staff testify? That would have shut up the impeachment inquiry in a heartbeat.
I also think that because from day one, Trump has worked really hard to piss off everyone, everywhere and then wonder why Democrats won’t work with him. He keeps moving goal posts like the crappy way he treated the bipartisan effort to solve DACA and get the wall. How can anyone deal with that man?
It is said that if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. That might not even work for Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You don’t think Ukraine will want help again next year?
The Attorney for the alleged Whistleblower wrote the coup had begun before Trump was in office, so I think it’s hard to blame Trump for the ill will unless he had a time machine.
LikeLike
I thought the “coup has begun” was in reference to Trump’s firing of Sally Yates. She had been in office a full 10 days, from inauguration to January 30, 2017. The first Trump purge.
But I’ve been wrong before.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That would require that time machine again. The Tweet from the Attorney was over a month before Trump was sworn in.
As to firing Yates, remember that Clinton fired 93 of 94 US Attorneys the day he took office and Obama replaced all of them over a period of a few months.
LikeLike
Replacing attorneys is pretty normal.
Reagan replaced them all, Bush, Jr replaced a bunch and Trump replaced 46.
I trust your research on the “coup” quote timeline.
I guess the coup against Obama did not officially start until the evening of his inauguration. That was the infamous dinner when GOP operatives, Representatives and Senators agreed to destroy his presidency.
Trump is sooo picked on. Poor baby!
Or just plain baby.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 1 person
An agreement between Senators to work to defeat Obama at his next election is very different from a 3 year search for an excuse to deny Trump an second election.
The drive to impeach began before Trump took office and has jumped from one pretense to another as each fell away as unsupported.
This has never been done before, but will likely become standard practice for both parties from now on.
But that’s OK, I’m a Libertarian and a frozen government while the two major parties work to destroy each other is fine with me.
LikeLike
The only freeze by the government going on these days is that perpetrated by one Magic Mitch McConnell who makes legislation disappear.The House has walked and chewed gum since January of this year. McConnell is the one who is not legislating. To deny that is to deny the truth.
LikeLike
“ An agreement between Senators to work to defeat Obama at his next election is very different from a 3 year search for an excuse to deny Trump an second election.”
It was a lot more than just an agreement to win the next election. They bonded to destroy his presidency by refusing to cooperate with anything he proposed. Anything.
But I should have referred to the Republican effort to impeach Clinton that started before he was elected and continued for 6 years about an old real estate deal and ended with a blue dress.
All for $55 million in 1990’s dollars.
That was unprecedented. As was the deal about Obama.
Trump has it easy. He just makes it seem so “yuge” by his incessant whining.
LikeLike