Dems Backfiring Impeachment Cartoons

Tim Scott on Dems' impeachment focus: 'They're pretty concerned' because Americans 'now solidly behind' Trump

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said Sunday that Democrats have been focused on impeachment because “they’re pretty concerned” due to the fact that “they believe the American people are now solidly behind President Donald Trump.”
Scott appeared on “Fox & Friends Weekend” one day after House impeachment managers filed their brief to the Senate, claiming the evidence against Trump “overwhelmingly” established abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Scott added that “the most important statement made about this entire impeachment process was made by [Texas] Congressman Al Green when he said if we don’t impeach him, he might win.”
The South Carolina senator also pointed out, “[House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi held the impeachment documents for nearly a month, which means there is no existential threat. There is no national-security threat.”
Scott explained, “I believe the Democrat strategy is not to bring more illumination to the case, but to put a bull’s eye on the back of [Colorado Republican Sen.] Cory Gardner, [Iowa Republican Sen.] Joni Ernst, [Arizona Republican Sen.] Martha McSally, [North Carolina Republican Sen.] Thom Tillis. That is the strategy they’re using to try to win back the Senate,” Scott said, referring to Republican senators facing tough reelection campaigns.
“This is actually not about removing the president, this is about removing enough senators in the Republican Party in order to take control of the Senate and to rebuke the president for the next four years because they’re pretty concerned.”
In Saturday’s 111-page brief, the impeachment managers wrote, “President Trump’s conduct is the Framers’ worst nightmare.”
The brief was the Democrats’ opening salvo in the historic impeachment trial, with House managers arguing Trump used his official powers to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 U.S. presidential election for personal political gain, then tried to cover it up by obstructing Congress’s investigation into his alleged misconduct.
“The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that he is guilty. ... The Senate must use that [impeachment] remedy now to safeguard the 2020 U.S. election, … protect our constitutional form of government and eliminate the threat that the President poses to America's national security,” the brief stated.
Scott said Sunday that Democrats were reacting in such a way because their “greatest fears are coming true” due to Trump’s success.
“The fact is that this president has focused on bringing opportunities to the poorest communities in the nation,” Scott said. “This president has helped bring the minority unemployment rate to record lows for Asians, for African-Americans, for Hispanics.”
Scott noted the country’s 3.5-percent unemployment rate. “Our stock market is going through the ceiling. They are trembling in their boots, so the only thing they have focused on their minds today is not President Trump, it is removing senators from office so that they can have control of the United States Senate.”
He went on to say, “There’s no question that President Trump’s economic agenda has brought more prosperity into the African-American community than we’ve seen in my lifetime.”
“This president is producing the type of results that only say one thing to the African-American community,” Scott continued. “We believe that there is high-potential, incredible people who only needed opportunity and access to those opportunities. President Trump has brought so many of those to the community that I believe that we’re going to have a record turnout on behalf of the president [in November].”
Fox News’ Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.

Steve Hilton on royal drama: 'I'm sick of Harry. I'm sick of Meghan. I'm sick of this story'

Steve Hilton weighed in Sunday on the drama involving the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's decision to "step back" as members of the royal family, reacting to Prince Harry on Sunday publicly addressing the situation.
"To be completely honest, I'm sick of Harry. I'm sick of Meghan. I'm sick of this story. I'm sick of the royals," Hilton said on his show "The Next Revolution." "As far as I'm concerned, when the Queen, who we all love very much, is finished with her reign then Britain should go and stop being a banana republic as it is when we have the royal family and become a real republic."
"Abolish the monarchy," Hilton added. "That is my populist take."
In a speech given at a dinner for supporters of the Sentebale charity in London Sunday, the Prince addressed why he and his wife, Meghan Markle, choose to relinquish their "royal highness" titles and move part-time to Canada.
"The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not one I made lightly," the Prince said. "It was so many months of talks after so many years of challenges. And I know I haven't always gotten it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option. What I want to make clear is, we're not walking away, and we certainly aren't walking away from you."
Former deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland, a guest on the program, said that Prince Harry may regret his decision to "break with his family" when he is older.
"I think Prince Harry as a young man and his may end up regretting and have a number of years to regret, regret breaking with his family, particularly with his grandmother, and that sometimes things done in haste and youth are not the things that keep you happy in old age," McFarland said.
Jenna Ellis, a Trump 2020 senior legal advisor,  praised the Prince for his decision.
"He may have been born into this, but he's making, now as a husband and a father, the best decisions for his family," Ellis said.
Hilton said Prince Harry should step out of the limelight.
"Please just sort of go away and figure it out and just stop with this endless obsession with the royals," Hilton said.
Fox News' Nate Day contributed to this report

New York Times editorial board endorses Warren, Klobuchar for president

The New York Times announced late Sunday that its editorial board was breaking "from convention" and will endorse two candidates for president in 2020: Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
The paper’s endorsement has traditionally been one of the most coveted for a Democratic politician. The editorial board wrote that in choosing these two candidates, it recognizes that both "radical" and "realist" models should be considered.
The paper said it spent more than 12 hours with the candidates before coming to its conclusion.
"The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country," the editorial read. "But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values."
The paper called Warren a "gifted storyteller" who has "emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left." The editorial board called her path to the White House "challenging, but not hard to envision."
Warren reposted the article on Twitter, joking, "So I guess @AmyKlobuchar and I are now both undefeated in New York Times endorsements!"
Klobuchar was described as the "standard-bearer," but for the party’s center. The paper gushed that she is the very definition of "Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness."
The paper pointed to her goals of slashing childhood poverty, achieve 100 percent net-zero emissions by 2050 and her push for a more robust public option in healthcare. He moderate approach to governing would make for a formidable deal maker in Washington, the editorial wrote.
Reports on how she treats her staff “gave us pause,” but she pledged to do better in the future, the paper wrote.
Perhaps as important as who the paper endorsed is who it did not.
Joe Biden, the former vice president who continues to lead in polls, but his agenda does not go far enough on issues like climate and health care, the board wrote. The editorial board also wrote that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., appeared to have missed his moment. The paper pointed out that he would be 79 when he's sworn in and has recently suffered a heart attack. "His health is a serious concern," it wrote.
The paper said it is looking forward to watching South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg develop as a politician and said it was impressed with his resume, but it also pointed out that he never won more than 11,000 votes. The paper said it hopes Andrew Yang, the entrepreneur, also continues to work in politics and recommended looking to New York to get started.
Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor who the editorial board endorsed twice, falls short of the editorial board’s aspirations for 2020. The editorial pointed to issues like barring his own media company from investigating him and his refusal to let women who signed nondisclosure settlements speak to the media. The paper said his campaign approach “reveals more about America’s broken system than his likelihood of fixing it.”

GOP senators considering 'kill switch' option should impeachment trial spiral out of control

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly is close to finalizing a rule that would allow President Trump's team to move to dismiss the articles of impeachment in the Senate quickly after some evidence has been presented, as a sort of safety valve in case Democrats try to drag out the trial for weeks.
The discussions came as Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that the trial could extend "to six to eight weeks or even longer" if the Senate decided to hear from additional witnesses -- a prospect that could interfere with the imminent presidential primary contests, as Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., likely would get pulled off the campaign trail.
McConnell, R-Ky., wouldn't be obligated to publicize the final version of his resolution setting the parameters of the impeachment trial until Tuesday, but top Republicans have said they supported affording Trump the opportunity to cut the trial short.
Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, for example, said he would be "very, very surprised" if McConnell's resolution didn't include that kind of kill switch.
"I am familiar with the resolution as it stood a day or two ago," Hawley told Axios. "My understanding is that the resolution will give the president's team the option to either move to judgment or to move to dismiss at a meaningful time."
Trump, Hawley wrote on Twitter after Axios' article was published, "deserves the right during Senate trial to ask for a verdict or move to dismiss - otherwise trial will become endless circus run by Adam Schiff."
Democrats, meanwhile, have voiced frustration privately that McConnell was holding the final rules for the trail close to the vest.
“The House managers have absolutely no idea what the structure of the trial two days before the trial begins,” one source with House Democrats working on the impeachment trial told Fox News.
The discussion may end up being moot: Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who is set to present an argument against impeachment during the Senate trial, said Sunday it will be clear there will be "no need" for witnesses if his presentation were to succeed. "Criminal-like conduct," Dershowtiz said, was required for impeachment.
For his part, Trump suggested earlier this month that an "outright dismissal" might be appropriate. But, Republicans almost certainly wouldn't be able to muster the votes necessary to end the trial prematurely.
The issue of witnesses may remain in limbo for a few more days. Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she's comfortable waiting to decide if more information would be needed as part of the Senate's impeachment trial until after hearing arguments from House managers and attorneys for the president.
Murkowski said Saturday she wanted to make sure there was a process that would allow senators to "really hear the case" and ask questions "before we make that determination as to, what more do we need. I don't know what more we need until I've been given the base case."
If Democrats were to try adding certain witnesses to an organizing resolution, Murkowski said she expected McConnell would move to table such a request and she would support a tabling motion.
"What I've worked hard to do is make sure that we have a process that will allow for that determination" — whether witnesses or documents would be needed, she said. "But, I want to have that at a point where I know whether or not I'm going to need it."
She said all senators faced political pressures but her responsibility was "not to focus on the politics of where we are but a recognition that we are in the midst of an infrequent and in many ways extraordinary process that the Constitution allows for, and I'm going to take my constitutional obligations very, very seriously."
Regardless of how one viewed the House's handling of the impeachment process, the matter has moved to the Senate, she said, adding later she did not want the proceedings to become a "circus."
No senators were more eager to avoid a circus, and get going with the proceedings, than the presidential candidates facing the prospect of being marooned in the Senate ahead of kickoff nominating votes in Iowa and New Hampshire.
“I'd rather be here,” Sanders said on New Hampshire Public Radio while campaigning Sunday in Concord.
During the trial, Sanders and other senators are required to sit mutely for perhaps six grueling hours of proceedings daily — except Sundays, per Senate rules — in pursuit of the "impartial justice" they pledged to pursue.
Fox News' Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

elizabeth warren cartoons

Murkowski wants to hear case before deciding on witnesses

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Alaska U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she’s comfortable waiting to decide if more information is needed as part of the Senate’s impeachment trial until after hearing arguments from House managers and attorneys for President Donald Trump and questions from members.

The Republican said Saturday she wants to make sure there’s a process that allows senators to “really hear the case” and ask questions “before we make that determination as to, what more do we need. I don’t know what more we need until I’ve been given the base case.”

Murkowski spoke to reporters from Anchorage ahead of Senate impeachment trial proceedings expected to begin Tuesday.

If Democrats try to add certain witnesses to an organizing resolution, Murkowski said she expects Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would move to table such a request and that she would support a tabling motion.

“Because what I’ve worked hard to do is make sure that we have a process that will allow for that determination” — whether witnesses or documents are needed, she said. “But I want to have that at a point where I know whether or not I’m going to need it.”

She said there are political pressures “on all of us” but said her responsibility is “not to focus on the politics of where we are but a recognition that we are in the midst of an infrequent and in many ways extraordinary process that the Constitution allows for, and I’m going to take my constitutional obligations very, very seriously.”

Regardless of how one views the House’s handling of the impeachment process, the matter is now before the Senate, she said, adding later she does not want the proceedings to become a “circus.”

Trump was impeached by the House on charges he abused his power by pushing Ukraine to investigate his Democratic political rival Joe Biden and that he obstructed Congress by blocking witnesses and testimony in the House investigation. Trump has said he did nothing wrong.

Murkowski said a recent Government Accountability Office report that concluded the White House violated federal law by withholding congressionally approved security aid to Ukraine reminded her of last year’s debate over Trump’s declaration of a border emergency that he invoked to spend more for border barriers than Congress had approved.

During that debate, she said she maintained the president could not take funds congressionally directed to one area and use them to advance his own policies. “Whether it was for the wall or for any other thing, I have been one that has said, ‘Congress has a very specific role when it comes to appropriation of funding and that needs to be respected,’” she said.

She said she viewed the GAO report with a “little bit of concern,” in part because of the need to respect Congress’ appropriation powers.

In a telephone interview Friday with the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska’s other Republican U.S. senator, Dan Sullivan, said he supports using the same rules as the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, which Sullivan said would give Trump a “fair and balanced” process. Under those rules, he said, the determination of whether or not to bring witnesses would happen in the second phase.

“I think this is going to be a stark contrast to what happened over in the House where you literally witnessed the most rushed most partisan and unprepared impeachment proceedings in the House in U.S. history,” Sullivan said.

National Archives: ‘We made a mistake’ altering Trump photos

President Donald Trump escorted by Col. Brian Daniels walks to board Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., Friday, Jan. 17, 2020, en route to his Mar-a-Lago estate, in Palm Beach, Fla. ( AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — The National Archives said Saturday it made a mistake when it blurred images of anti-Trump signs used in an exhibit on women’s suffrage.

The independent agency is charged with preserving government and historical records and said it has always been committed to preserving its holdings “without alteration.”

But the archives said in a statement Saturday “we made a mistake.” The archives’ statement came one day after The Washington Post published an online report about the altered images.

The archives said the photo in question is not one of its archival records, but rather was licensed for use as a promotional graphic in the exhibit.

“Nonetheless, we were wrong to alter the image,” the agency said.

The current display has been removed and will be replaced as soon as possible with one that uses the original, unaltered image, the archives said.

The exhibit about the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, blurred some anti-Trump messages on protest signs in a photo of the 2017 Women’s March in Washington.

Signs that referred to women’s private parts, which also were widespread during the march, which was held shortly after Trump took office, also were altered.

The archives said it will immediately begin a “thorough review” of its policies and procedures for exhibits “so that this does not happen again.”

T he American Civil Liberties Union called on the archives to issue a more detailed, explanation.

“Apologizing is not enough,” Louise Melling, the organization’s deputy legal director, said in a statement. “The National Archives must explain to the public why it took the Orwellian step of trying to rewrite history and erasing women’s bodies from it, as well as who ordered it.”

Archives spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman told the Post for its report that the nonpartisan, nonpolitical federal agency blurred the anti-Trump references “so as not to engage in current political controversy.”

References to female anatomy in the signs were obscured in deference to student groups and young people who visit the archives, Kleiman told the newspaper.

Kleiman did not respond to an emailed request for comment Saturday from The Associated Press. The public affairs office at the archives emailed the statement.

The archives issued the apology as thousands again gathered in Washington and in cities across the country Saturday for Women’s March rallies focused on issues such as climate change, pay equity and reproductive rights.