Representative Matt Gaetz confronted the jaw-dropping level of political bias and Trump Derangement Syndrome exhibited by Chairman Nadler’s panel of left-wing experts.
With a visible display of righteous indignation Mr. Gaetz dressed down the pompous liberal law professor, Pamela Karlan, and cut right to the heart of the matter with the entire panel. WATCH:
Professor Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School became the pompous face of the academic impeachment panel today when she ridiculed the son of President Trump in an effort to highlight her resistance bona-fides. Imagine the hate that necessarily exists in the heart of a witness who would rehearse such a line to gain tribal cheer.
.
Professor Karlan’s tone-deaf effort is a result of a life in an echo-chamber of far-left liberalism. However, the exhibited hatred did more to support the argument of the impeachment opposition than a thousand hours of granular testimony. Karlan’s disposition during her diatribe is a case study in Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Trump Derangement Syndrome Personified
Bilat #4 was a private meeting between President Trump and Denmark Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and closed to public. [Greenland purchase?…]
Prior to Bilat #5 President Trump and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte’ hold a media availability prior to their meeting. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. We just met with the Prime Minister of Denmark. Had a great meeting and discussed a lot of things, including trade.
And now we’re meeting with a friend of mine — a good friend of mine, the Prime Minister of Italy. And we have many things to discuss, including trade and military and all sorts of different things that we’re working on together. And he’s done a terrific job, become very popular in Italy. A very popular man, as — I’m not surprised to say that.
But — so this will be actually my last meeting. And I guess, there’s not a reason to have press conferences because we’ve had about eight of them, so I can’t imagine you’d have any more questions. But it’s been a very successful day and a very successful two days. We made tremendous progress.
We’ve raised $130 billion from outside of the United States — other countries putting up that money. And that’s on a yearly basis. That’s $130 billion a year. In three years, that will be $400 billion a year extra. Not just dollars — extra dollars. And that’s unthinkable.
And I will tell you, Secretary General Stoltenberg was extremely generous in his remarks, but it was not good what was going on with NATO, which is very important. NATO is very important. It was not good, and now it’s gone to a very, very strong positon — the strongest, I think, it’s ever been.
And speaking to the President of France — yesterday, we had a good meeting, and he’s taken back his comments very much so on NATO. And I think he feels strongly. He sees what’s happened and what’s going on and how other countries are stepping up.
So we had a really good day today and a good day yesterday, and a lot of positive things have happened. And again, Mr. Prime Minister, it’s an honor to be with you. Thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER CONTE: Thank you.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you. Please.
PRIME MINISTER CONTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER CONTE: — for (inaudible). We already met yesterday.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, right.
PRIME MINISTER CONTE: And now we have a good location to — an exchange of views —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Right.
PRIME MINISTER CONTE: — about trade (inaudible), about defense, and other issues. It will be a pleasure.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s good. Thank you very much. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER CONTE: Thank you.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Okay, thank you very much. I’ll see you guys — some of you on the plane and some of you elsewhere. We appreciate you. We had a great — this was a great two days.
Q Since it’s —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Steve, go ahead.
Q Since it’s our last opportunity to ask you questions, do you want to comment on the House Democrats impeachment report that came out last night and the hearing today?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I did. I saw it, and it’s a joke. Everybody is saying it. And I watched reviews. I watched Hannity — Sean Hannity. I watched Laura Ingraham. I watched Tucker Carlson. I watched a lot of other legal scholars, frankly. I watched some people of great legal talent and highly respected — Alan Dershowitz, and many more. Many more.
I watched a very terrific former special prosecutor; you know Ken. And Ken is a talented man and a smart man. And I will tell you, it is a uniform statement — I think pretty much — pretty much right down the road. But what they’re doing is a very bad thing for our country. It’s of no merit.
And the Republican Party has never been more unified ever. They’ve never been as unified as they are right now. I’ve never seen anything like it, where you have 197 to oh — to zero, where the Senate is very angry about it. I think the Senate, I can say, is angry and the Republican Party is angry.
A recent poll came out: Ninety-five percent approval rating for me in the Republican Party, which is a record. Ronald Reagan was at 87. He was the second.
So, I mean, it’s going good. I’ve never seen anything like it where the Party has come together. And it’s going to stay that way for a long time. I think we’re going to have a tremendous 2020. I’m sure you’ve all seen the polls that have come out, especially in the swing states. We’ve gone way up in the polls.
And I think it’s — you know, it’s a disgrace. You have a loser like — the guy is a stone-cold loser and has been all his life — Adam Schiff. And then you have Nancy Pelosi who agreed with what he said, which puts her into real jeopardy. Agreed on a certain show, “Stephanopoulos.” And, frankly, it’s a bad thing for the country.
I’m over here with NATO. We’re meeting with, in this case, Italy, but we’re meeting with great countries, very important countries. We’re doing a good job. And they scheduled it — same thing happened a number of months ago when they put the United Nations, the UNGA, they put — the United Nations situation; they had a hearing with somebody on the same day. And now they do it with NATO. These people, you almost question whether or not they love our country. And that’s a very, very serious thing — do they, in fact, love our country.
So they scheduled that during the United Nations. I’ll never forget — I’m walking into the United Nations, and I start hearing all of the things that they were talking about exactly at that time. Literally, I’m walking through the front door, and you folks start screaming out to me about whatever. You know what you were screaming.
And now I do NATO — this was scheduled for a year — and the same things happens: They schedule a hearing. It’s a hoax. It’s a total hoax.
We had a great call with the President of Ukraine. It was a great call. Not just a good call; it was a perfect call. In fact, it was two perfect calls. And everybody knows it. And, by the way, the President of Ukraine was a hundred percent honest. All you have to do is listen to the call or read the call. We had it transcribed perfectly. But he was — he said, no pressure, no nothing. There was no nothing. In fact, they don’t even understand what you people are talking about. And I think they probably consider it disgraceful. I think it’s a disgrace that we can be wasting time.
In the meantime, USMCA, the greatest trade deal of them all, is sitting on Nancy Pelosi’s desk. It’s drawing dust. It’s been there for many, many months. And farmers, manufacturers, union, non-union, everybody — everybody wants it. And nothing happens. It’s a very sad thing for our country.
The word “impeachment” is a dirty word, and it’s a word that was only supposed to be used in special occasions: high crimes and misdemeanors. In this case, there was no crime whatsoever. Not even a little tiny crime. There was no crime whatsoever, and they know it. And they go into those rooms and they close those doors down in the basement, and they say — I’ll tell you what they say; they just laugh, because it’s a — to them, it’s a joke. They think they’re doing well, but now they’re not doing well. Now they’re saying, “How do we get out of this?” Because their poll numbers are way down, and they’re going to have a tremendous loss in 2020. And that’s what’s going to happen.
No matter how you cut it, it’s been very interesting. But to do it on a day like this, where we’re in London with some of the most powerful countries in the world, having a very important NATO meeting, and it just happened to be scheduled — this was set up a year ago — just happened to be scheduled on this date, it’s really, honestly, it’s a disgrace.
So, that’s it. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Q Do you still have confidence in Rudy Giuliani?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t know anything about it. Rudy is a very good lawyer. He’s a great crime fighter. He was the best mayor in the history of New York City, I think, by far. He stopped crime in New York City. As a U.S. attorney, he was incredible. He’s highly respected.
So somebody said he made a phone call into the White House. What difference does that make? I don’t know. You know, is that supposed to be a big deal? I don’t think so. Rudy is a great gentleman, and they’re after him only because he’s done such a good job. He was very effective against Mueller and the Mueller hoax. That whole thing was a hoax.
First we had Mueller and we had — before we had — before I even got elected, this was going on. Now, the IG report, which is coming out, will be very, very interesting. We’ll see what that’s all about. And then, of course, as you know, the big one that’s going to come out is the Durham report. And I don’t know Mr. Durham. I’ve never spoken to him. But he’s one of the most respected law enforcement or U.S. attorneys anywhere in the country. He’s a tough guy. He’s had an incredible track record. He’s actually sort of non-partisan, I guess, from what I hear.
But the big one that everyone is waiting for is that, and the IG report. So the IG report, they say, is coming out on Monday, Tuesday, maybe — whatever. But they say Monday. I think it’s going to be a very big thing. And we’ll see what happens.
But this should never happen to a President again. For me, it’s okay. But this should never happen to a President again, what’s happened here. It’s a disgrace to our country. It’s an absolute disgrace to our country. It’s sad, actually. And it’s done by, you know, frankly, losers. You look at the people; look at the cast of characters between Nadler and Schiff and Pelosi — Nervous Nancy. It’s an absolute disgrace to our country.
And I think a lot of Democrats, by the way, are going to vote against it. I think that, you know — because, if they don’t know, they’re going to lose their race, because people are putting — and they went back to their districts and they are getting hammered by their districts. And if they don’t, they’re going to lose their race. So, in many ways, I hope they don’t. Okay? And we’ll get a fair shake in the Senate. Assuming that whatever happens happens, we’ll get a very fair shake in the Senate.
And — but we’ve already been given — if you just take a look, today, I understand — I haven’t — obviously, I’ve been with all of these world leaders and done conferences with the world leaders, so I haven’t been able to watch. But think of it: They get three constitutional lawyers, and we get one. What’s that all about? Just that little statement — they get three, we get one. We had no representation. We couldn’t call witnesses. We couldn’t do anything. It is the most unfair thing that anybody has ever seen. They would have done much better if they gave us equal representation, because the public gets it.
But just look at today. Now, I don’t think too many people are going to watch because it’s going to be boring, all right? In fact, you’re here. I guess you’re here and we’ll supersede it, right? But not a lot of people are going to be watching today.
But just think of this: Constitutional lawyers, they get three and we get one. What kind of a deal is that? Now, you don’t need a constitutional lawyer because there was nothing done wrong. Zero done wrong. And I say it, and I’ll say it again: Read the transcript and then listen to what the President of Ukraine said. He said there was no pressure whatsoever. Listen to what the Foreign Minister of Ukraine — a highly respected man. Both of them, very respected. Listen to what the Foreign Minister said. And he said there was no pressure whatsoever. That’s the only one that counts.
But then listen to all of their witnesses, and not one of them said anything that was meaningful, other than positive for me. Like, the one said there was no quid pro quo. That’s what he said. And he said that I actually told him that there will be no quid pro quo. I said that. And I said other things that were even stronger than that.
And, you know, it’s a disgrace that they are doing this. And they’re doing it because they think they can’t win in 2020. They’re doing it because you take a look at their candidates, and their candidates are not doing too well. And they figure this is their only shot. And it’s a disgrace because this process was not supposed to be used that way.
Okay. Any other questions?
Q Yes, Mr. President, why do you feel like there is a need for a separate “2 percenters” event?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Because the 2 percenters, they’re good friends of mine. They’re countries that paid their full amount. The 2 percent is 2 percent of their GDP. They’ve paid their full amount, and I’m proud of them. And we had a total of nine. And when I first came here, we had virtually none.
If you look at NATO today compared to NATO three years ago, when I started, we built up NATO. And Stoltenberg will tell you, it was because of Trump. Because I said, “You got to pay.” Other Presidents came and they’d sit for two hours and they’d leave, and that would be it. I said, “No, you got to pay.” And because of that, NATO has become strong again. Much stronger. I think your President of Italy would tell you that. Much stronger than it has ever been.
And with that money, they’re buying new equipment. I mean, these countries are going out and buying great airplanes and great everything. It’s a good thing to have. Hopefully, we never have to use it. And I don’t think we will have to use it. But the stronger we get, the less likely it will be that we have to use it.
Thank you all very much. I’ll see you back in Washington. Thank you.
Q Did you convince Erdoğan to get rid of the S-400?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Say it?
Q Did you convince Erdoğan to get rid of the S-400?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We talked about it a little bit. You’ll be hearing about it. Thank you.
Earlier today President Trump hosted a luncheon at the NATO summit for nine nations’ who are living up to their pledges of two-percent of GDP financial support for the NATO military alliance: United States, Bulgaria, Greece, United Kingdom, Estonia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. These are eight countries, plus us — plus the United States — that are fully paid. They met the goal of 2 percent. We call them the “2 percenters.” Someday, we’ll raise it to 3 percent and 4 percent, maybe. But, right now, we have it.
But these are countries that have not been delinquent. They’ve been, in some cases, even more than 2 percent, because they feel so strongly about what we’re doing. And that’s really a sign of respect for the United States.
And one of the gentlemen — I won’t mention who — but said it’s so important to have the United States as a part of NATO because of what we’ve done. And just to make you all feel good, we will have spent, under what I’ve done, $2.5 trillion on the military. Two and a half trillion. So that pales in comparison when you look at what we’re talking about, right? So it’s — but it’s two and a half of the greatest equipment in the world. Every form of equipment known to mankind or womankind.
So I just want to thank these great countries. And they are great. They’ve become friends of mine, in many cases. And they’re very respected within their own countries. But these are countries that have met the goal of 2 percent.
We have, unfortunately, a large number that haven’t met the goal. Some are very close, and they will be. We’ve received an additional $130 billion a year. And, I guess, if you go back three years, it’s perhaps even more than that. But I’ve been doing this for three years.
And the Secretary General will tell you, in a few seconds; he’s going to say some — a little bit about it. But when I first came, it was like a rollercoaster down, not up. Down. It was all the way down at the lowest point ever. And since then, we’ve gone up massively. And now we’ll be, by far, the highest point ever.
So it’s a great organization. And we — we owe a lot to the Secretary General. He’s been fantastic. He’s done, really, a fantastic job.
We think it’ll be up — within three years, it will be up to $400 billion more. And — but, in the meantime, these are the countries. I said, “I want to take the 2 percenters to lunch.” We call them, affectionately, “Those 2 percenters.” But I want to take them to lunch. So this is a lunch that’s on me.
And I want to thank you all. And if you’d like to say something to the press, you can. But, in the meantime, I’ll ask our great Secretary General to say a few words.
SECRETARY GENERAL STOLTENBERG: Thank you so much, Mr. President. And thank you so much for hosting this lunch with nine countries — or the eight plus one, the United States — that are spending 2 percent of GDP on defense.
And just a few years ago, this would have been a few small group of countries. Because, a few years ago, there were only three countries. And so this is actually more than twice as many countries just since a few years ago.
So this demonstrates the progress we are making on defense spending. We still have much to do, and more Allies have to meet the 2 percent guideline. But it demonstrates that we are making real progress.
It also demonstrates that your leadership on defense spending, Mr. President, is having an impact, because more Allies meet the 2 percent guideline. All Allies have started to increase. The majority of Allies have plans in place to meet the 2 percent guideline by 2024. And the European Allies and Canada have added $130 billion to the defense budget since 2016. And this number will be $400 billion by 2024.
So this is significant progress. This is making NATO stronger. This is unprecedented. So, again, it’s great to be together with countries which are really investing in our shared security and showing that NATO is adapting, NATO is flexible, NATO is able to change when we need to respond to more demanding security environments.
So once again, thank you so much, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you. Great job you’re doing. Thank you very much.
How about Poland? Would you like to say something representing the group?
PRESIDENT DUDA: Mr. President, thank you very much for this —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you.
PRESIDENT DUDA: — for the kind invitation. And we are very glad that we are in this group of countries who feel responsibility for — not only for our own security, not only the security of our border, but also security of the whole Alliance.
And this approach, “NATO 360 degrees,” is one of the crucial elements of our Alliance and unity. As we had very good discussion today, and we have, in my opinion, very important decision. And this meeting today was the next step. And it shows that we are united and we are together, and that the NATO Alliance is still alive and still in very good shape.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It is, indeed. I think he would get fantastic television ratings with that — with the way he made that presentation. (Laughter.)
How about my friend? You want to say something?
PRESIDENT IOHANNIS: Yes, thank you so much for — for inviting us. I think this is an important sign for NATO, because we are — except for you, we are not the richest countries and, still, we believe in NATO. We believe in the unity of NATO. And we believe that NATO is extremely important for all of us. So instilling this idea of burden sharing is extremely important, and I think our colleagues will follow our lead. So thank you.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: They will, actually. And if they don’t, we’ll get them on trade. One way or the other, they’re paying, folks — that, I can tell you.
Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Q Just to clarify, sir, did you cancel the news conference? You’re going to — you’re still going to do it?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Say it, Steven?
Q Did you cancel the news conference? We weren’t clear.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, yeah, I’ll cancel the news — I’ve done so many. And I’m doing, I think, two more. We’re meeting with Italy and Denmark. So, I’m doing two more. I think that’s enough. There would be nothing to say. So I won’t be — you’ll let the word out. We’re doing — but we are doing Denmark and Italy right after this. So we’re staying for two more bilats, and the press will be invited, okay?
President Trump held a bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the sidelines of the 2019 NATO Summit in the U.K. Against the backdrop of President Trump favoring increased tariffs against the EU to initiate a new trade deal based on reciprocity; and against the intransigence of Chancellor Merkel refusing to live up to the NATO Wales Accord and pay two percent of GDP for defense; there is some diplomatic tension.
We can sense a more determined tone from President Trumy as both he and Chancellor Merkel took questions from media. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. We had a very successful NATO meeting. I think it was one of the most successful. We’re just discussing that the best, certainly, that I’ve been — I’ve been to three of them now, and this was really something very special. There’s great spirit. A lot of people are putting up a lot of money. We have $130 billion more. And within three years, we’ll have $400 billion more put up by other countries. So that’s really something. And it was a great meeting.
We’re going to have, right now, a bilat with Chancellor Merkel of Germany. We have many things to discuss, including trade. We’re doing a lot of trade, and we have been doing a lot of trade. And we will have a successful meeting, I’m sure.
I just want to thank you very much. We had some good talks already. Thank you very much, Angela. Thank you.
CHANCELLOR MERKEL: (As interpreted.) Well, yes, I would agree that we had a very successful meeting indeed on this occasion, the 70th anniversary of NATO. We discussed a number of strategies that are very important to secure the future of this Alliance. And it was a very constructive debate that we had, and this is why I’m also very satisfied with the meeting.
And now we shall talk about bilateral issues.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s right. Okay? Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.
Q Could we talk — can we ask you about the Erdoğan meeting, sir?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah.
Q Did you discuss with —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We had a meeting with —
Q Did you discuss with him the NATO commitment that they protect —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I discussed with him everything. We discussed a lot. We had a meeting, unscheduled. But we’ve already put out a notice. It was a very good meeting, I think. We discussed Syria. We discussed the Kurds. We discussed numerous things. And we’re getting along very well.
The border, and the safe zone, is working out very well. I thought it would. And I give a lot of credit to Turkey for that. The ceasefire is holding very much so, and I think people are surprised. And maybe, someday, they’ll give me credit, but probably not. But that worked out well. They’ve been trying to do this for a hundred years. That border is a mess for a long time.
We pulled our soldiers out; we took over the oil. We have soldiers where the oil is. And that’s the way I like it. And they can police their own border, and that’s what they’re doing. They can use other countries if they want. If they want to spend the time and energy, they can do. But this is a border that’s been under siege for many, many decades, and it was time for us to leave, and we left. And it’s been holding very nicely. So we’re very happy. We talked about that.
Q And are they committed to protecting the NATO commitment to protect the Baltics and Poland?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, yeah, they’ve been very good. I think that, frankly, a lot of people pay great respect to Turkey for the work that they’ve done. And we had a number of mentions where they were mentioned specifically. No, they’ve been doing a good job, and they’ve been doing a good job also on the border and the safe zone. And they have held — I mean, obviously there were some skirmishes. That’s been around for a long time. But they’ve been — the ceasefire has held very, very well.
Q Mr. President, can you explain why your personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, would need to talk to the budget office?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I really don’t know. You’d have to ask him. Sounds like something that’s not so complicated, frankly. But you’d have to ask him. No big deal.
Q Mr. President, Germany has welcomed six more countries into INSTEX, making it nine countries now that are circumventing U.S. sanctions against Iran. Have you talked about that with the Chancellor and —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, but we will. I haven’t talked —
Q Yeah. What would you say to her?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I’m not going to say what I’m going to say, but we will be talking about it. We’ll be talking about a number of things. We’ll have a good meeting. Okay?
Q Mr. President, will you put sanctions on Nord Stream II? Will the U.S. put the sanctions on?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Say it again.
Q Will the U.S. put sanctions on Nord Stream II?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we haven’t really determined that yet. I do think it’s a problem, but it’s a problem that Germany is going to have to work out for themselves. And maybe for Germany it won’t be a problem. I hope it’s not, actually. But we’ll be talking about that, Nord Stream.
Q And, Mr. President, what did you respond to President Putin’s offer on a moratorium for medium-range missile systems, which he made in the end of October? President —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re talking to Russia about many things, including a cessation on nuclear and nuclear creation. It’s, in my opinion, the biggest problem the world has today. I think it’s bigger than any other problem the world has today. And we’re working very hard on it. And he wants to see something happen and so do I, and so does China.
Q Mr. President, do you talk about trade issues with Europe, as well? Car sanctions —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re going to be talking about everything, yeah. Trade is very important. Germany is a very big trading partner, but it’s been really the European Union. And we are — we’ve been discussing it for quite a while. It’s been a little tough for the United States. We’ve had a very bad imbalance for many, many years — for decades, actually. And we’re discussing that right now. So I think we’ll come — I think we’re going to come — I think we’ll come to a satisfactory conclusion.
CHANCELLOR MERKEL: One word.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes.
CHANCELLOR MERKEL: (As interpreted.) I think that the fact that there is a new commission in place and also in the leadership of a new President of the European Commission, that now we have a very good basis to resume our trade talks as well.
[INSERT: Germany knows the poop is about to hit the fan… /SD]
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Meetings have been set up and we’ll talk. And I believe that it will work out very well for everybody. And I think it should. We have some very tough barriers to — you know, they have — they’ve created barriers, as Angela knows very well, and making it very hard for the United States, really, to openly trade. And that can’t be done.
And so we’re going to be talking about that and other things. I think we will solve it. We do a lot of business, but they do much more business than us. And we’re going to make — we’re going to change it up. I’ve been saying this for the last six months, for the last year. And we’ve made progress, but we will make a lot of progress. And we just want fairness. We have to have fairness in trade not only with the EU, but with many other countries.
We’re talking to China, as you know. Those discussions are going very well, and we’ll see what happens. But we’re talking to China. We’re talking to others. We made a deal with South Korea. We made a deal with Japan. The Japan deal is a partial deal. It’s — the rest will come next year. But we’ve made already many deals.
We’re looking — the big is the USMCA with Canada, Mexico. And Nancy Pelosi has to get that approved. She has to put it out for a vote. She doesn’t have to talk to anybody. She doesn’t have to talk to any of her Democrats because they’ll approve it, and their constituents want it approved very badly. So that’s where we are.
We have — we’ve made a lot of deals. And this is a deal, I think, that’s going to be — the EU is actually one of the more difficult deals we have because it’s gone on for a long time unchecked. But it’ll get there, I’m sure.
Q Did you see the video of Prime Minister Trudeau talking about you last night?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, he’s two-faced.
Q Do you think that Germany is too naïve concerning —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And, honestly, with Trudeau, he’s a nice guy. I find him to be a very nice guy. But, you know, the truth is that I called him out on the fact that he’s not paying 2 percent. And I guess he’s not very happy about it. I mean, you were there. A couple of you were there. And he’s not paying 2 percent, and he should be paying 2 percent. It’s Canada. They have money. And they should be paying 2 percent. So I called him out on that, and I’m sure he wasn’t happy about it, but that’s the way it is.
Look, I’m representing the U.S., and he should be paying more than he’s paying, and he understands that. So I can imagine — I can imagine he’s not that happy, but that’s the way it is.
Q Mr. President, where are you in terms of persuading other allies, in terms of allowing China to build 5G networks?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I’m not working very hard on that. But I do think it’s a security risk. It’s a security danger. And I spoke to Italy, and they look like they’re not going to go forward with that. We spoke to other countries. They’re not going to go forward. Everybody I’ve spoken to is not going forward. But how many countries can I speak to? Am I going to call up and speak to the whole world? It is a security risk, in my opinion, in our opinion. We’re building it and we’ve started. But we’re not using Huawei.
Q Will you tax Germany for not paying enough in terms of defense spending?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, Germany is a little bit under the limit, I will say that. But we’ll talk about that now. Okay?
Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. I think what we’ll do is, just for purposes of this: We’ll be having a meeting with the 2 percent people, and we’re having another meeting with Denmark, and then we’ll probably go directly back to Washington.
Q Will you address Greenland during that Den- —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Because I can’t imagine — I can’t imagine — will we discuss Greenland? What do you think? (Inaudible). (Laughs.) Huh?
Q Do you still want to buy Greenland?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s a very — that’s a good — she must be in the real estate business. (Laughter.) That’s a very good question.
[INSERT: Note the Denmark bilat is “private”… /SD]
So, we’ll go directly back. I think we’ve done plenty of press conferences. Unless you’re demanding a press conference, we’ll do one, but I think we’ve answered plenty of questions.
And, again, let me just finish by saying we’ve had a tremendous two days. I think NATO is stronger than it’s ever been. A lot more money is being produced by a lot of countries, and they’re enthusiastic about it. And within three years, you’re going to be talking about four — committed to $400 billion more, and not by the United States; by other countries.
So, it’s been very successful today, and there’s great spirit. Okay? Thank you very much, everybody.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and not a supporter of President Trump, warned House lawmakers today against impeaching a President without merit. Mr. Turley said that to impeach Trump based on the current evidence “would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.”
[Opening Remarks Below]
.
[Transcript] Chairman Nadler, ranking member Collins, members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley, and I am a law professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law.
It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss one of the most solemn and important constitutional functions bestowed on this House by the Framers of our Constitution: the impeachment of the President of the United States.
Twenty-one years ago, I sat here before you, Chairman Nadler, and other members of the Judiciary Committee to testify on the history and meaning of the constitutional impeachment standard as part of the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. I never thought that I would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president. Yet, here we are. Some elements are strikingly similar.
The intense rancor and rage of the public debate is the same. It was an atmosphere that the Framers anticipated. Alexander Hamilton warned that charges of impeachable conduct “will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.” As with the Clinton impeachment, the Trump impeachment has again proven Hamilton’s words to be prophetic.
The stifling intolerance for opposing views is the same. As was the case two decades ago, it is a perilous environment for a legal scholar who wants to explore the technical and arcane issues normally involved in an academic examination of a legal standard ratified 234 years ago. In truth, the Clinton impeachment hearing proved to be an exception to the tenor of the overall public debate. The testimony from witnesses, ranging from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Laurence Tribe to Cass Sunstein, contained divergent views and disciplines. Yet the hearing remained respectful and substantive as we all grappled with this difficult matter.
I appear today in the hope that we can achieve that same objective of civil and meaningful discourse despite our goodfaith differences on the impeachment standard and its application to the conduct of President Donald J. Trump. I have spent decades writing about impeachment and presidential powers as an academic and as a legal commentator. My academic work reflects the bias of a Madisonian scholar. I tend to favor Congress in disputes with the Executive Branch and I have been critical of the sweeping claims of presidential power and privileges made by modern Administrations. My prior testimony mirrors my criticism of the expansion of executive powers and privileges.
In truth, I have not held much fondness for any president in my lifetime. Indeed, the last president whose executive philosophy I consistently admired was James Madison. In addition to my academic work, I am a practicing criminal defense lawyer.
Among my past cases, I represented the United States House of Representatives as lead counsel challenging payments made under the Affordable Care Act without congressional authorization. I also served as the last lead defense counsel in an impeachment trial in the Senate. With my co-lead counsel Daniel Schwartz, I argued the case on behalf of federal judge Thomas Porteous. (My opposing lead counsel for the House managers was Adam Schiff).
In addition to my testimony with other constitutional scholars at the Clinton impeachment hearings, I also represented former Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation over privilege disputes triggered by the investigation of Independent Counsel Ken Starr. I also served as lead counsel in a bill of attainder case, the sister of impeachment that will be discussed below.
I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama.
Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.
To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment.
President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.
If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.
Although I am citing a wide body of my relevant academic work on these questions, I will not repeat that work in this testimony. Instead, I will focus on the history and cases that bear most directly on the questions facing this Committee. My testimony will first address relevant elements of the history and meaning of the impeachment standard. Second, I will discuss the past presidential impeachments and inquiries in the context of this controversy. Finally, I will address some of the specific alleged impeachable offenses raised in this process. In the end, I believe that this process has raised serious and legitimate issues for investigation.
Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet moving forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy on this record would be as precarious as it would premature. It comes down to a type of constitutional architecture. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.
The physics are simple. The higher the building, the wider the foundation. There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy has not offered such a foundation and would easily collapse in a Senate trial.
Before I address these questions, I would like to make one last cautionary observation regarding the current political atmosphere. In his poem “The Happy Warrior,” William Wordsworth paid homage to Lord Horatio Nelson, a famous admiral and hero of the Napoleonic Wars. Wordsworth began by asking “Who is the happy Warrior? Who is he what every man in arms should wish to be?” The poem captured the deep public sentiment felt by Nelson’s passing and one reader sent Wordsworth a gushing letter proclaiming his love for the poem. Surprisingly, Wordsworth sent back an admonishing response. He told the reader “you are mistaken; your judgment is affected by your moral approval of the lines.” Wordsworth’s point was that it was not his poem that the reader loved, but its subject.
My point is only this: it is easy to fall in love with lines that appeal to one’s moral approval. In impeachments, one’s feeling about the subject can distort one’s judgment on the true meaning or quality of an argument. We have too many happy warriors in this impeachment on both sides. What we need are more objective noncombatants, members willing to set aside political passion in favor of constitutional circumspection.
Despite our differences of opinion, I believe that this esteemed panel can offer a foundation for such reasoned and civil discourse. If we are to impeach a president for only the third time in our history, we will need to rise above this age of rage and genuinely engage in a civil and substantive discussion. It is to that end that my testimony is offered today.
Divining the intent of the Framers often borders on necromancy, with about the same level of reliability. Fortunately, there are some questions that were answered directly by the Framers during the Constitutional and Ratification Conventions. Any proper constitutional interpretation begins with the text of the Constitution. Indeed, such interpretations ideally end with the text when there is clarity as to a constitutional standard or procedure. Five provisions are material to impeachment cases, and therefore structure our analysis:
Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. U.S. Const. art. I, cl. 8.
Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. U.S. Const. art. I, 3, cl. 6.
Article I, Section 3: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to the Law. U.S. Const. art. I, 3, cl. 7.
Article II, Section 2: [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. U.S. Const., art. II, 2, cl. 1.
Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, 4.
For the purposes of this hearing, it is Article II, Section 4 that is the focus of our attention and, specifically, the meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
It is telling that the actual constitutional standard is contained in Article II (defining executive powers and obligations) rather than Article I (defining legislative powers and obligations). The location of that standard in Article II serves as a critical check on service as a president, qualifying the considerable powers bestowed upon the Chief Executive with the express limitations of that office.
It is in this sense an executive, not legislative, standard set by the Framers. For presidents, it is essential that this condition be clear and consistent so that they are not subject to the whim of shifting majorities in Congress. That was a stated concern of the Framers and led to the adoption of the current standard and, equally probative, the express rejection of other standards. (continue reading via pdf)
.
President Trump was asked Wednesday to remark on disparaging comments made about him by Justin from Canada during the diplomatic reception at No. 10 Downing Street on Tuesday evening.
President Trump responded: “Well, he’s two-faced;… and honestly he’s a nice guy, I find him to be a very nice guy, but the truth is I called him out on the fact that he’s not paying two percent and I guess he was not very happy about it.”
At 10:00am ET the House Judiciary Committee will hold an “impeachment groundwork” hearing with a panel of left-wing resistance academics scheduled to help democrats justify their urgent partisan efforts to remove President Trump from office.
HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler will be aided by contracted Lawfare attorney Norm Eisen for the effort. Chairman Nadler promised his peers he will be very aggressive toward any opposition questioning that seeks to undermine the predetermined enterprise. The academic panel is scheduled to begin testifying to Mr. Eisen at 10:00am ET
C-SPAN Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link – Fox Business Livestream Link
.
.
President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump attend day two of the 70th Anniversary NATO Summit in London, England. The U.K. is five hours ahead of U.S. Eastern Time.
Day two includes: a general session for all members of the NATO alliance; a luncheon by President Trump to thank those NATO members fulfilling their two-percent pledge to their own security; bilat meetings with Angela Merkel, Mette Frederiksen and Giuseppe Conte; a press conference, and then departure.
♦3:25am ET / 8:25am Local – THE PRESIDENT departs Winfield House Landing Zone en route to the Grove Landing Zone, London, UK
♦3:40am ET / 8:40am Local – THE PRESIDENT arrives at the Grove Landing Zone, London, UK
♦3:50am ET / 8:50am Local – THE PRESIDENT departs the Grove Landing Zone en route to The Grove, London, UK
♦3:55am ET / 8:55am Local – THE PRESIDENT arrives at The Grove, London, UK
♦4:20am ET / 9:20am Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in an Official Welcome with the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Jens Stoltenberg, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Boris Johnson, London, UK
♦5:00am ET / 10:00am Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization Plenary Session, London, UK
♦7:30am ET / 12:30pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a bilateral meeting with the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Angela Merkel, London, UK
♦8:15am ET / 1:15pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a working lunch with the NATO two-percent club, London, UK
♦9:00am ET / 2:00pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a bilateral pull-aside with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, London, UK
♦9:45am ET / 2:45pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a bilateral pull-aside with the Prime Minister of the Italian Republic, Giuseppe Conte, London, UK
♦10:30am ET / 3:30pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a press conference, London, UK
~ NATO Summit Concludes ~
♦11:20am ET / 4:20pm Local – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart The Grove en route to the Grove Landing Zone, London, UK
♦11:25am ET / 4:25pm Local – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at the Grove Landing Zone, London, UK
♦11:35am ET / 4:35pm Local – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart the Grove Landing Zone en route to London Stansted, London, UK
♦11:55am ET / 4:55pm Local – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at London Stansted Airport, London, UK
♦12:05pm ET / 5:05pm Local – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart London, UK, en route to Washington, D.C., London, UK
♦8:20pm ET – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Joint Base Andrews, Joint Base Andrews
♦8:30pm ET – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Joint Base Andrews en route to the White House, Joint Base Andrews
♦8:40pm ET – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at the White House, South Lawn, Washington DC
The Democrat Progressives led by Pelosi and her donners have not got the end game of their battle with Trump in their sights. Their Joker Adam Schiff has now produced a 300 page document, The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report that has been sent to the House Judiciary committee to start the process of impeaching Trump. There is no chance that Nadler will not turn that Schiff report in to articles of impeachment that will be voted on with around 224 votes +/- of support and sent to the Senate before the end of the year.
What is in the first paragraph, above, is of no surprise to most of those following this process. However, the prevailing view that the Senate will not find Trump guilty on all counts is false. I say this will some degree of certainty as I have been following what is going on politically since the end of the Bush administration. In particular in 2010 when the Tea party movement started and was immediately attacked by the progressive wings of both parties it became obvious that something was not right.
Over the next 6 years there appeared to be coordination between the two parties to stop any populist movement in the country. When Trump decided to run for president, both political parties made an effort to prevent him from winning the 2016 election. But it was a halfhearted movement as they saw Hillary wining was a sure thing. This view was based on two factors number one she was needed to completed the Obama goal of neutering the US and number two all the power brokers and the media were for her so how could she loose she was a Clinton?
She may have been a Clinton but she was not Bill and worse she was so full of herself that she wouldn’t even listen to his advice; which was very sound. The result was that she probably ran the most inept campaign for president ever; and thereby lost. With that all hell broke loose and it’s not over.
Now which switch gears and look at the Senate and the Republicans? The Republicans also have Progressives and their leader is Mitch McConnell. Now republican progressives are somewhat different then the Democrat progressives but the differences are not large. For example the McConnell faction is for open borders, Climate Change and government run Health Care. McConnell engineered the McCain vote that blocked the repeal of Obama Care and was all for the Immigration reform that was eventual stopped in 2014 with the defeat of Republican Eric Cantor in the House, by the Tea Party.
McConnell was also instrumental in getting Progressive Republicans into the Senate by running anti Tea Party ads and/or supping the Democrat candidate i.e. Doug Jones in Alabama. Then we have Mitt Romney in Utah and now Kelly Loeffler in Georgia just to site a few examples. Some of the rest are: John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Joni Ernst, Todd Young, John Thune, Mike Lee, Cory Gardner, Mike Crapo, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis, Lamar Alexander, Roy Blunt, Susan Collins, Jerry Moran, Rob Portman, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Roger Wicker, Lisa Murkowski. And the biggest snake of them all Lindsey Graham.
McConnell has more than enough Trump haters in is collation such that he could convict Trump if the Senate gets the Articles of Impeachment. I suspect that McConnell with try to blackmail Trump to either back off on the border issue and the trade issues which the Republican money suppliers to not want. How open, in the public, this gets is a question and I hope Trump tells McConnell to stuff it.
For purposes of clarity the previously mentioned Republicans and most of the Democrats are in league with the bureaucrats and together with the State Department, the CIA the DNI the FBI and the NSA make up the Deep State.
The enemies of the people are legion but we have the numbers and so it should be made very clear in the next few weeks that if anything is done to remove Trump or make Trumps second term ineffective, by a close impeachment vote in the Senate, that in November of 2020 We will vote for Trump but no other Republican. I will vote Libertarian and if they impeach Trump he should run as a libertarian.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 