Connect with us

AYKM?

Rick Santorum Flattened by CNN’s Berman After Calling Parnas Bombshell Revelations ‘Extraneous’ to Impeachment

Published

on

Rick Santorum and CNN’s John Berman got into a frantic back-and-forth on Friday morning after the former Republican senator attempted to dismiss the revelations by former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas as something that should not be submitted as evidence in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Discussing the Senate trial expected to start next week, Santorum said the only testimony and witnesses that should be allowed are ones that came up in the earlier House hearings.

“The House’s responsibility to bring to us a case,” Santorum stated. “They’re the one who is said these are offenses that are worthy of the president being removed from office; here is the record, here are the charges. The Senate didn’t impeach, the House did, so we are going to look at the record the House presented us. We’re going to look at the witnesses and say are there are questions that we have for the people that brought this case forward and relied on these witnesses and look at their testimony.”

“But to bring in extraneous testimony? I don’t think members feel it’s their obligation or duty to do so,” he added.

“The extraneous testimony, Lev Parnas says he personally told the Ukrainians that they would not get aid,” Berman lectured. “Listen, I understand he has credibility issues, but listen to my full question here. It’s new evidence which does get to the central issue here. It seems to me that you’re saying even if President Trump came up today and said, ‘you know what? I did this. I withheld the aid. I’m guilty of this. I admit to all of it,’ you would say ‘you know what? It’s inadmissible because it didn’t come up at the House impeachment investigation. You can’t include his investigation because it didn’t come up in the impeachment investigation.’”

“First of all, I’m not saying it’s inadmissible,” Santorum shot back. “I’m telling you how they’re receiving this. And if something ground-breaking would come forth, there might be a reason to bring that information in. All I’m suggesting is that most members believe that even if you accept everything the Democrats say is true, it doesn’t rise to the level of removing a president.”

Watch below:

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

AYKM?

‘Unqualified Trump Loyalist’: Experts Weigh in on Appointment of Stephen Miller Ally to Be Top Lawyer at DHS

Published

on

President Donald Trump has installed Chad Mizelle, an attorney tied to top White House advisor Stephen Miller, to run the Dept. of Homeland Security’s Office of the General Counsel. Miller is largely seen as an anti-immigrant extremist and white nationalist. Mizelle has been an attorney for under 10 years, and will now be in charge of 2500 other attorneys, as CNN reports.

An unverified Twitter account under the name of Chad Mizelle, which includes tweets about Cornell University, his alma mater, shows a Chad Mizelle retweeted a Federalist Society tweet quoting attorney Charles Cooper that says: “Requiring complete diversity may well be unconstitutional.” Cooper has represented Jeff Sessions, John Bolton, and John Ashcroft.

Mizelle also retweeted this from Cardinal Timothy Dolan:

CNN reports American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers “said the qualities the Trump administration values the most are loyalty and an ability to push through its political agenda.”

“By putting a lawyer with little overall experience and no direct experience, it is reasonable to conclude that his qualifications are just those things — loyalty to the President and the ability to carry out Stephen Miller’s agenda,” Evers added.

Mizelle is yet another political appointee who “will be replacing a career official,” CNN adds, noting Mizelle “filled the void left after the previous Senate-confirmed general counsel, John Mitnick, was fired in September — months after Miller wanted him out.”

Former Special Counsel at the Dept. of Defense, Ryan Goodman, calls Mizelle “unqualified and a Trump loyalist.”

The nonpartisan oversight watchdog American Oversight, unsurprisingly – given Mizelle’s ties to Miller – says it is “seeking communications of [DHS Acting Deputy Secretary] Ken Cuccinelli and Chad Mizelle with anti-immigration groups.”

American Immigration Council Policy Counsel Aaron Reichlin-Melnick is expressing concern:

University of Michigan Law asst. professor:

Continue Reading

AYKM?

‘King Louis XIV Argument’: Dershowitz Decimated for Claim It’s Not Quid Pro Quo if Presidents Believe Re-Election Is in Public Interest

Published

on

Trump defender Alan Dershowitz is once again being mocked for his latest claim, that presidents can use the tools of the State to win re-election because they believe holding office is in the public interest.

The Harvard law professor made the claim during  the question ands answer session of Wednesday afternoon’s Senate impeachment trial.

Here’s how some are responding:

 

 

Continue Reading

AYKM?

Feinstein on Acquitting Trump: ‘The LA Times Misunderstood What I Said’

Published

on

Responding to an LA Times report titled “Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his lawyers end their impeachment defense arguments,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a 28-year veteran of the U.S. Senate, says the paper “misunderstood” her remarks.

“Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him despite serious concerns about his character,” the LA Times had reported.

Feinstein, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had suggested that this close to an election, the American people should make the decision on whether or not to remove the president – despite him standing credibly accused of rigging the 2020 election with foreign influence.

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

She apparently has chosen to walk back those remarks.

This article, including the title, has been updated to reflect Feinstein’s latest remarks.

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. This story will be updated, and NCRM will likely publish follow-up stories on this news. Stay tuned and refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 AlterNet Media.