A Review of What Television
Controlled by Socialists and Communists
Worked to Sell as Truth in Relation
to the U.S. President Donald J. Trump Impeachment
(2019 and 2020)
Victor Edward Swanson,
The Hologlobe Press
February 10, 2020
Since 2004, I have published documents on the Internet about television on a monthly basis, and the documents have been posted at the website for The Hologlobe Press. In late 2019 and in 2020, several documents showed off the nonsense of the impeachment theme against U.S. President Donald J. Trump, particularly showing what the Democrats (of the Democratic Party in the United States of America), especially those in the U.S. House of Representatives, did on television to sell lies to the American public at least good Americans and the world. This document has been put together by taking sections of several T.H.A.T. documents, and it gives a chronological look at the rottenness of the people in the Democratic Party, who are "enslavists" ("liberals" or "progressives" or "socialists" or "democratic socialists" or "communists" or "Shariaists").
Here is what was originally put in T.H.A.T., Edition No. 186 (of October 10, 2019):
The nature of communists and socialists is to have government be the sole determiner of everything in society, and that is especially true of such people who get into politics or become politicians. The reasons that such people want government to be the sole determiner of everything are many and show off the evilness of the people; for example, they want to be able to use laws and ultimately police under their control to keep others from getting as much from life, such as riches, as they want, and they want others to not gain as much stature and prominence in society as they want, and they want to be able to use police forces and such to keep them in power so that they do not have to take up other jobs (given they, basically, have no skills), and they want to be able to live morally and ethically freaky lives or be able to do what can be considered by good people to be morally defective and ethically freaky ways, and they also like--if not love--to hurt other people, which can be done well when they are in control of government, such as through courts and security forces. In this day and age, the communists and socialists are commonplace in the United States of America, and, for instance, they make up everyone in the Democratic Party in the United States of America and most of the news-related people in the main media, such as at such television networks as MSNBC, CNN, ABC-TV, NBC-TV, and CBS-TV. The communists and socialists will do anything to achieve their goals, since, in essence, it is all that they have in life or want to do in life, and, today, they are using television on a regular basis to help them reach their goals and sell lies and deception and bullshit--communists and socialists are society killers or, simply killers. In the past month, more evidence to support my claim about socialists and communists being ultimately society killers or killers showed up on television, and I show off some of the evidence in this edition of Television History and Trivia, and I do it with much of the edition, but the edition does have a bit of nice stuff or good stuff.
Since I published the previous edition of Television History and Trivia, a big event was launched, especially through television, by the communists and socialists in the country to push yet another big lie about U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and it showed off more evilness of the communists and socialists in the media and the U.S. government, and on Thursday, September 26, 2019, a part of the event was a television broadcast of a U.S. House of Representatives committee interrogation of Joseph Maguire (the Acting Director of National Intelligence), and it was a committee hearing headed by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (a Democrat related to California). For example, NBC-TV called the broadcast an NBC News Special Report, and CBS-TV called the broadcast a CBS News Special Report, and ABC-TV called the broadcast an ABC News Special Report, but I state that the broadcast was a propaganda event and a manufactured-news event and a phony television spectacular, and the event was used by the communists and socialists in the country to advance even more their work of turning the country into another communistic and socialistic country. Right from the start, the hearing provided lies to the American public, and the first lies were pushed out by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, who talked about a telephone call (of July 25, 2019) between U.S. President Donald Trump and the President of Ukraine (Volodymyr Zelensky) and who pushed out such lies as U.S. President Donald Trump "...betrayed his oath of office..." through the conversation, eight times talked about Joseph Biden, mentioned that Volodymyr Zelensky was not to call him till things were done, performed an act that was like a "classic organized crime shakedown...", and did not protect The U.S. Constitution and the United States of America [Note: During the hearing, Adam Schiff was sort of forced to recant his opening lies, which are too numerous to report here, and Adam Schiff pushed out the idea that he was working to parody U.S. President Donald Trump with the opening remarks, but a good and smart person was well aware Adam Schiff pushed the lies because many Americans would only catch bits and pieces of the hearing--if anything--and Adam Schiff's opening-statement lies would get easily locked in as truth in the minds of most people, given most people would not get information that would wipe out the lies.]. The entire hearing was about a so-called "whistleblower" report and a so-called "whistleblower"--who, as it was reported around the time, was a CIA agent who had been planted in the White House to spy on U.S. Donald Trump--and it was reported that the "whistleblower" was pushing forth truth that U.S. President Donald Trump had sold out his public office to benefit himself. By the way, around the time of the hearing, it was public knowledge that the so-called "whistleblower" had not actually heard the conversation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, and it was reported that the so-called "whistleblower" had learned about things said by talking with people who--it seemed or maybe--had actually heard the telephone conversation [Note: On Thursday, September 26, 2019, information was provided to the American public through The Mark Levin Show (a national syndicated radio show hosted by famous big-time lawyer Mark R. Levin) that the official text document from the "whistleblower" seemed to be suspicious, and the text document did not have the writing style that was expected from a CIA-type agent and that the form was like that which a lawyer would write, hinting that the "whistleblower" did not write the text document (or complaint) or that people helped the so-called "whistleblower" write the text document).]. Keep in mind--On the morning of Tuesday, September 24, 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump gave an address at the United Nations, and the speech took place in the morning, and the speech was the third speech to the United Nations by Donald Trump as the U.S. president, and in the afternoon of Tuesday, September 24, 2019, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat related to California) held a press conference in which she announced the she was formally getting a impeachment investigation going in the U.S. House of Representatives, though smart and good people then knew Democrats in the U.S. Congress were already running an investigation or investigations [Note: Nancy Pelosi's thought about "impeachment" investigation was not real "impeachment" procedure, such as that guided by The United States Constitution.]. The enemies (communists and socialists) of the country were pushing the idea that U.S. President Donald Trump did an impeachable action through the telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine on July 25, 2019 (from 9:03 a.m. to 9:33 a.m. Eastern Time), and the impeachable action was supposed to be that U.S. President Donald Trump forced President Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up dirt about Joseph Biden and provide it to U.S. President Donald Trump, and, in essence, U.S. President Donald Trump used his office to coerce Volodymyr Zelensky and was using his office in association with Volodymyr Zelensky to rig the next upcoming presidential election in the United States of America. And remember--for over two years, the communists and socialists in the country (the "Democrats") had worked to sell the lie that U.S. President Donald Trump had rigged the previous presidential election in the United States of America by getting help from the Russians (or the Russian government), though it was well know by good and smart Americans that no votes had been changed in the election and it was impossible for the Russians to be involved in changing votes, given how the voting process is set up in the United States of America, where the election process for U.S. president is not federally or nationally controlled, as happens in bad countries. On Wednesday, September 25, 2019, the Donald Trump administration released a transcript (the full transcript) of the telephone call of July 25, 2019, and good and smart people understood that the tone of the conversation showed that Donald Trump did not do any corrupt action, such as an action to force Volodymyr Zelensky to provide dirt of Joseph Biden or not get something (such as money or support from the U.S. government), and the only mention of Joseph Biden by name was in this text (spoken by Donald Trump)--"...There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution [in the Ukraine], and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it....". [It must be remembered that the U.S. President heads the Executive Branch of the federal government, and the U.S. President has the duty to enforce the laws of the U.S. government, and the U.S. president can start investigations into possible violations of U.S. law, and the U.S. president can have investigating done by, for instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (or the FBI) or the Central Intelligence Agency (or CIA), which are parts of the Executive Branch of the federal government), and it must be remembered that U.S. President Bill Clinton (a Democrat) was involved in making a treaty between the United States of America and Ukraine in 1998 and 1999, and the treaty is known as the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1999).] What Donald Trump was referring to in relation to Joseph Biden--especially the prosecutor-firing event in the Ukraine in relation to Hunter Biden (whose father is Joseph Biden)--goes back to when Joseph Biden was the vice president of the United States of America. The event related to Joseph Biden was a coercion event, as good and smart people understand, and, yes, Joseph Biden did admit in public to getting the prosecutor fired. Joseph Biden took part in a discussion of the Council of Foreign Relations on January 23, 2018, and Joseph Biden said in public, in relation to making an announcement of a billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine, that the Barack Hussein Obama administration would only pass along the loans if a prosecutor in Ukraine, who was investigating Hunter Biden, was fired, and, during the talk of January 23, 2018, Joseph Biden reported that, in six hours, the Ukraine prosecutor was fired [Note: I wanted to provide Joseph Biden's statement in quoted form, but Joseph Biden sentence structure was highly defective and he spoke so rottenly and sloppily that I saw that I could not write out a clean and clear copy in text form here--You can look it up.]. The Democrats in the United States of America, especially members of the media and the U.S. Congress, continually pushed out the idea in the week of Tuesday, September 24, 2019, that U.S. President Donald Trump worked to push President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine through the telephone call of July 2019 to get dirt on Joseph Biden; for example, many news entities lied about what was in the so-called "whistleblower" complaint, and one example of a lie is how the Detroit Free Press opened a story entitled "Washington plunges into Trump probe" [Mascaro, Lisa, and Mary Clare Jalonick and Julie Pace. "Washington plunges into Trump probe." Detroit Free Press, 26 September 2019, pp. 1A and 7A.)--"...President Donald Trump repeatedly pushed Ukraine's president to 'look into' Democratic rival Joe Biden, according to a rough transcript of a summer phone call that is now at the center of Democrats' impeachment probe into Trump...." [Note: I report that "repeatedly" is one lie, and I report that "rough transcript" is yet another lie; the text document of the telephone call did not show any repeated push, and the document was a five-page document and no rough transcript.]. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was at a mini-press conference with U.S. President Donald Trump on September 25, 2019, and Volodymyr Zelensky reported in highly broken English (which is not his native language)--"...We had, ah, I think good, da, phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things....Nobody pushed it, pushed me....". Even though the "whistleblower" had not actually heard the telephone call between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky and even though the transcript of the telephone call between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky showed nothing bad and even though Volodymyr Zelensky said he was not pressured by Donald Trump to do anything, television networks in the United States of America broadcast the hearing headed by Adam Schiff on September 26, 2019, which pre-empted regular programming, and it was crap.
On the weekend of Saturday, September 28, 2019/Sunday, September 29, 2019, the press worked hard it seems to make U.S. Representative Adam Schiff look good and proper in relation to the so-called "whistleblower" hearing, especially the opening statement by Adam Schiff that was supposedly nothing more than parody. For instance, George Stephanopoulos is the host on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC-TV on Sunday mornings, and George Stephanopoulos had Adam Schiff as one of the guests for the show of Sunday, September 29, 2019, following an interview with Rudy Giuliani (a Republican and a supporter of Donald Trump). The result of the interview between George Stephanopoulos and Adam Schiff showed off how both were in league to push such ideas as good and truthful that Donald Trump highly urged the president of Ukraine to dig up a lot of dirt and make up a lot of dirt on Joe Biden and Donald Trump had used the full weight of his office to coerce the president of Ukraine and that Donald Trump believes he can coerce foreign leaders, which is all nonsense and bullshit. In addition, the statement about Donald Trump "believing" he can coerce foreign leaders was Adam Schiff's putting words in Donald Trump's mouth or mind, given Adam Schiff had no proof to back up his statement--it was more lying from Adam Schiff on television.
And did your favorite television newscast or newscaster make this information clear in your mind? On Wednesday, October 2, 2019, Adam Schiff was once more making public statements that showed off his evilness, especially on television, and he did it during a press conference with Nancy Pelosi, the leader on the U.S. House of Representatives and a Democrat. One collection of words spoken by Adam Schiff was--"...We are deeply concerned about, ah, Secretary Pompeo's effort now to, ah, potentially interfere with witnesses who, whose testimony is needed before our committee, many of whom are mentioned in the whistleblower complaint. Uhm, and we want to make it abundantly clear that any effort by the Secretary, by the President, or anyone else to interfere with the Congress's ability to call before it relevant witnesses will be considered as evidence of obstruction of the lawful functions of Congress. And more than that will allow a, an adverse inference to be drawn as to the underlying facts. Ah, that is they are going to prevent witnesses from coming forward to testify on the allegations in the whistleblower compaint, ah, that will create an adverse, ah, inference that, ah, that those allegations are correct....". Look at the quoted material carefully. Adam Schiff is putting forth the idea that facts mean nothing--He will conclude guilt without facts, and I state that that is the way of a communistic or socialist mind, and it is something that can be expected from communistic-based or socialistic-based investigations. In addition, I say that, if Donald Trump uses the legal methods to protect the office of the presidency, such as through court action, Adam Schiff will assume and proclaim guilt. A smart and good person understands the way of Adam Schiff is not the way of the rules of justice in the United States of America, where a person has to be proven guilty with facts and proofs. Adam Schiff also pushed out this set of words during the press conference--"...To say that we are concerned that the White House will attempt to stonewall our investigation, much as they have stonewalled other committees in the past, ah, it's why I say the White House needs to understand that any action like that, ah, that forces us to litigate or have to consider litigation, ah, will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice....". A U.S. president is allowed by law to take on the U.S. Congress on the court system--it has happened countless times over the history of the country. Notice how Adam Schiff pushed the idea that any fighting back [even if the Congress is pushing rottenness or a rotten investigation tactic] by the U.S. president, particularly U.S. President Donald Trump, will be considered evidence of guilt, and that is rotten on the part of Adam Schiff. Once again, Adam Schiff used television to push crap and evil ways. [Note: "Executive privilege" is a feature of the U.S. presidency, and it can be used to keep talk between a U.S. president and foreign leaders secret, and it helps block some things from being made public and made known to the members of the U.S. Congress, and a U.S. president can claim executive privilege in relation to something--legally.]
I have to make a clear editorial comment here. The actions of Adam Schiff and his associates--the members of the Democratic Party at least--show why a country and why this country should have limited government and limits on politicians. It is commonplace for bad people to get into government jobs, even in the United States of America. Why would any smart and good person want a Democrat to determine anything, such as health-care rules, for the person? Democrats are society killers and more.
Incidentally, I have to report that I am aware of the January 2018 telephone call between U.S. Representative Adam Schiff and two Russians comedians (Vladmir Kyzetsov and Alexi Stolyarov). It was a telephone call started up by the two comedians, whose goal was to "punk" Adam Schiff. The two comedians made it seem that they were Russians officials and had nude photographs of Donald Trump, which had been taken during a Russian trip by Donald Trump. Adam Schiff was so serious during the telephone call, thinking he was on the way to getting material that would damage Donald Trump. If you are not aware of the telephone call, you should look it up on the Internet (the telephone call is available in audio form).
By the way, on September 25, 2019, good and smart persons in the United States of America were well aware of an event in which Democrats used their public offices to coerce Yuriy Lutsenko (the Prosecutor General of Ukraine) through a letter of May 4, 2018, and the Democrats were in the U.S. Senate and were Robert Menendez (related to New Jersey), Patrick Leahy (related to Vermont), and Richard J. Durbin (related to Illinois), and the letter opened with "We are writing to express great concern about reports that your office has taken steps to impede cooperation with the investigation of the United States Counsel Robert Mueller....", and the letter had--"...We respectfully request that you reply to this letter answering the following questions: 1. Has your office taken any steps to restrict cooperation with the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller? If so, why? 2. Did any individual from the Trump Administration, or anyone acting on its behalf, encourage Ukrainian government or law enforcement officials not to cooperate with the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller? 3. Was the Mueller probe raised in any way during discussions between your government and U.S. officials, including around the meeting of Presidents Trump and Poroshenko in New York in 2017?...." On May 4, 2018, good and smart Americans were already well aware the Trump-Russian-collusion investigation was all fake.
Here is what was originally put in T.H.A.T., Edition No. 187 (of November 10, 2019):
Since I published the previous edition of T.H.A.T., it has become public knowledge that the so-called "first whistleblower" in relation to the telephone call is Eric Ciaramella. Facts show that Eric Ciaramella, who had been pushed out of a job in the White House in 2017 for being a "leaker" to the media, never heard the telephone call, and because of that, he only has hearsay information to pass along, and that makes him no "whistsleblower" [Note: It must be noted that, in essence, Eric Ciaramella had contact with the Adam Schiff office before becoming the so-called "first whistleblower."]. The so-called "second whistleblower" is Alexander Vindman, who heard the telephone call, but since the transcript of the telephone call is public knowledge, what information that he gives is only opinion or his feelings or flap doodle about the telephone call--he can offer no facts. [By the way, like Michelle Obama, Eric Ciaramella, Alexander Vindman, Adam Schiff, and Nikolai Vitti, all of whom pass along crap regularly, have ties to Harvard University, the rotten communistic-based university for freaks and those who believe they are elites (people who often, it seems to me, lack good moral, honorable, common sense, and altruistic qualities.] In addition, it has been a rule of the U.S. presidents of the past that they can ask leaders of other countries to look into things or provide information on criminal matters--political leaders do talk back and forth and work on matters (matters of mutual interest) together. On October 31, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives (which is controlled by the "Democrats" (socialists, communists, and Shariaists)) voted to continue the investigating activities in relation to so-called impeachment issues tied to U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and the resolution was passed with 232 Democrats voting "yes" and 196 Republicans voting "no" and one so-called "Independent" (Justin Amash of Michigan, who a little while ago had let go of his affiliation with the Republican Party and supports socialistic and communistic causes, as, for example, his voting history in the U.S. House of Representatives shows) voting "yes" and four persons not voting; the action was not an official vote related to true impeachment procedures, so it was nothing more than a publicity maneuver, working to sell to the ignorant that the vote was an impeachment vote of some type and that U.S. President Donald J. Trump deserves to be impeached. Since the nature of the telephone call of July 25, 2019, is public knowledge, anyone who testifies about the telephone call being a sign of a crime of some type call can only pass along useless opinions and feelings and emotions and lies. I report again--If you see anyone on television pushing the idea that U.S. President Donald J. Trump did anything wrong in relation to the now-famous telephone call of July 25, 2019, you are seeing your enemy, who is to be hated greatly, and you are seeing a person who must be beaten down orally and verbally for your protection.
Here is what was originally put in T.H.A.T., Edition No. 188 (of December 10, 2019):
Recent editions of Television History and Trivia have reported on some very bad television programs or events, such as several Democratic Party presidential debates, and this edition of Television History and Trivia reports on really rotten television broadcast events of the past month, and the events were hearings held by U.S. House of Representatives. Two events, which were related to the Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives, took place on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 (starting at 10:00 a.m.) and on Friday, November 15, 2019. (starting at 9:00 a.m.). It must be remembered there had been about six weeks of closed-door hearings held by the Committee on Intelligence, guided along by Chairman Adam Schiff, before the live hearings were held, and I report, here, the so-called original whistleblower related to the telephone conversation of July 25, 2019, between U.S. President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky (of Ukraine), which the so-called original whistleblower had not heard, was not interviewed during the two live hearings, so the American people did not get to hear from the so-called original whistleblower and determine what they thought about the person (who is known to be Eric Ciaramella). U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (a Democrat related to California) opened the hearing of Wednesday, November 13, 2019, with his comments, and, by the way, during the roughly day-long event, Adam Schiff would push out the idea that U.S. President Donald Trump was guilty of bribery, and then a Representative Devin Nunes (a Republican related to California) got to present thoughts, and Representative Devin Nunes showed up a lot of the nonsense of things related to the so-called investigation of U.S. President Donald Trump. Incidentally, during Adam Schiff's time speaking, Adam Schiff pushed out such things as Donald Trump is working for Russia, and Adam Schiff pushed out the idea that Donald Trump is impeding or obstructing the U.S. Congress from investigating Donald Trump's actions and such, and Adam Schiff brought up history related to Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Franklin's theme about what the country was made to be--and the thought from Mr. Franklin was a democracy if you can keep it--and, yet, Adam Schiff was, has been, and is involved in anti-honorable actions or dishonorable actions (at least), if not anti-American actions and anti-United States Constitution actions, such as by lying big-time on September 26, 2019, during the testimony event on television of Joseph Maguire (the Acting Director of National Intelligence), which is part of the effort to tell the crap that U.S. President Donald Trump should be impeached, which is the theme of the communists and the socialists of the country, especially those in the U.S. Congress (at least the members of the Democratic Party) [Note: You are urged to see T.H.A.T. #186 to learn about the event of September 26, 2019, and the document can be reached through this T.H.A.T. #186 link.]. The first witness or person testifying at the hearing on Wednesday, November 13, 2019, was William Taylor, an ambassador, who had had no direct knowledge of the telephone call of July 25, 2019 [Note: By the way, William Taylor has never met U.S. President Donald Trump.], and, of course, William Taylor was supposed to be, in essence, the star witness or at least one of the star witnesses for the day, and the other main witness was George Kent, an ambassador. When U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (a Republican related to Ohio) was able to do actual questioning, U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (a Republican related to Ohio) made it clear that there was no linkage about "security assistance dollars" (to the Ukraine) in relation to three meetings with the new president of Ukraine (Volodymyr Zelensky) by Mr. William Taylor and others, and Mr. Taylor agreed with that assessment, and Jim Jordan reported that President Volodymyr Zelensky did nothing in public to note that there was going to be an investigation of, for instance, Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden for actions in Ukraine, and U.S. Representative Jim Jordan passed along these ideas clearly in relation to Mr. Taylor's knowledge about the telephone call. And Jim Jordan brought up the subject of Mr. Gordon Sondland (an ambassador) and some past testimony by Mr. Gorgon Sondland (an addendum, particularly "point number two" and more particularly "second sentence"), and Jim Jordan said, for instance--"...Let me read it one more time. 'Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 15, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.' We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your current understanding. Which, I mean. Even though you had three opportunities with President Zelensky for him to tell you--'You know what? We are going to do these investigations to get the aid.' Didn't tell you three different times! Never makes an announcement! Never Tweets about it. Never does an CNN interview! Ambassador, you weren't on the call, were you? You didn't listen in on President Trump and President Zelensky's call.'..." Representative Jim Jordan showed that William Taylor had no useful and direct information about anything bad done by U.S. President Donald Trump. Also on the day, U.S. Representative John Radcliffe (a Republican related to Texas), while questioning Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent, said--"So, ah, in this impeachment hearing today--where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes--where is the impeachable offense in that call? Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call?" There were two seconds of silence. Then, Representative John Radcliffe said: "Shout it out! Anyone.". Then, there were about three seconds of silence, and then Mr. Taylor began to speak, and, ultimately, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent could not report that there was something impeachable about the telephone call of July 25, 2019. On Friday, November 15, 2019, Marie Yovanovitch was the first person to be interviewed, being it seems a star witness to something important, but she had had no association with the telephone call of July 25, 2019, and, in fact, she had been removed from her ambassadorship in May 2019, and she could not present any direct testimony about anything, and, in essence, her testimony was a collage of emotions focusing on her being fired by U.S. President Donald Trump. By the way, in December 2008, the media entities, even the communistic-based entities, such as The Washington Post (Kessler, Glenn. "Obama Gives Political Ambassadors Their Pink Slips." The Washington Post, 3 December 2008, 10:04 a.m. EDT), reported that incoming U.S. president Barack Hussein Obama had announced that all ambassadors (which had not been appointed by Barack Hussein Obama) had to vacate their positions by January 20, 2009, and it was noted that Barack Hussein Obama was going to appoint all new ambassadors, which included those for such places as England and France. During the testimony by Marie Yovanovitch, Marie Yovanovitch pushed out the idea that the department is currently "being hollowed out", which was useless information, given, for instance, U.S. presidents get to hire and fire ambassadors [Note: I have shown Barack Hussein Obama fired ambassadors, and, for one, the press did not put down Barack Hussein Obama for firing the ambassadors.]. During the two days of the television events, I came up with thoughts about how many media people showed their rottenness. For instance, on Wednesday, November 13, 2019, Lester Holt of NBC News said, while on NBC-TV, that the hearing stuff was "The Constitution at work", which is a defective thought, since, for one, the hearing was not true impeachment procedure as set down in The United States Constitution, and good and smart persons understood the event was a public campaign to at least ruin the reputation of U.S. President Donald Trump so that he might lose favor in the minds of some voters and not be reelected as the U.S. president. [Note: On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, I went to the website for some of the Detroit-area television stations, and I saw misinformation, such as from Channel 4.1, (WDIV-TV), which noted--"LIVE COVERAGE: U.S. House holds first Trump impeachment hearings", though the event was not going to be a legal and true "impeachment" stuff, so, for example, WDIV-TV once again passed along crap.]. And for instance, on Friday, November 15, 2019, Chuck Todd (a hard-line socialist at least), who works for NBC News, pushed out while on NBC-TV the idea that we have a "constitutional crisis", and I report that his thoughts are bullshit, and I also was exposed to Chris Wallace (of Fox News Channel) pushing out nonsense, hinting that a person has "no pulse" if the person was not moved by the testimony given by Marie Yovanovitch, and Chris Wallace's making the statement shows he was trying to get people to be sympathetic toward Marie Yovanovitch, which--I say--is a bunch of bullshit. I must pass along the idea that Marie Yovanovitch has been tied to U.S. Department of State" jobs for a number of years, such as years when Hillary Clinton was the U.S. Secretary of State, when Hillary Clinton was involved in what good people know were criminal actions related to computer servers, and when the "Benghazi Killings Scandal" took place, which was during the time of Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president. Oh, I learned, during the hearing of Friday, November 15, 2019, Marie Yovanovitch never talked with U.S. President Donald Trump at any time in 2019, while Maria was an ambassador. Hold it! On Friday, November 15, 2019, I was reminded by Rush Limbaugh (of The Rush Limbaugh Program, a nationally syndicated radio show) that the President Volodymyr Zelensky had told U.S. President Donald Trump that Marie Yovanovitch was sympathetic to the previous president of Ukraine, and history shows that the previous president of Ukraine was corrupt. The following week, there were more live interviews related to the Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives for the American public to see on television, and the interviews again offered no real useful information--hearsay was the norm. On November 20, 2019, Gordon Sondland was the main witness in the morning, and Laura Cooper and Dave Hale were witnesses in the afternoon, and some information spoken by Gordon Sondland was--"I believe I just asked him [Donald Trump] an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman. 'What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas of theories and this and that. What do you want?' And it was a very short abrupt conversation. He [Donald Trump] was not in a good mood. And he just said--'I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.' Something to that affect.". In essence, the material from Gordon Sondland--which was not to the benefit of Adam Schiff and his associates--helped show up as baseless the idea that Donald Trump had done something bad in relation to the Ukraine, and, for instance, such other witnesses of the week as Laura Cooper, David Hale, Kurt Volker, and Tim Morrison, saying little of value, received little notice from the press that was working in collusion with the Democrats. In essence, the five days of live interviews were a sham filled with emotions and feelings and hearsay and guesses from those interviewed, and it was five days of wasted television time. I have to report that the hearings did not bring up the point that the Ukraine (under the previous president (Viktor Yanukovych) before Mr. Zelensky) worked against getting Donald Trump elected to the office of the presidency of the United States of America in 2016 and the previous president did try to help the Hillary Clinton campaign [Vogel, Kenneth P., and David Stern. "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." politico.com, 11 January 2017, 05:05 a.m. EST.], and that idea is tied to the idea that Donald Trump was aware in 2019 that the Ukraine may not be a real ally to the United States of America (while he was going to be the U.S. president) and might not deserve to be given U.S. aid in the form of money [Note: A U.S. president is able to block aid to a country, if it is deemed the country that might get aid is not worthy of the aid, and that is law.]. In addition, the live hearings--under control of Adam Schiff and the Democrats--did not bring up a quotation from President Zelensky (spoken in the second telephone call with U.S. President Donald Trump)--"...Her [Marie Yovanovitch's] attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous president, and she was on his side....". And, by the way, when Adam Schiff was interviewing Marie Yovanovitch, Adam Schiff brought out the idea that U.S. President Donald Trump was then--in essence, at the moment--tweeting information that was against her, and Adam Schiff tried to push out the idea that Donald Trump was being involved in witness intimidation, and at that time or moment, Marie Yovanovitch--unable to know was was going on on the Internet--pushed out the idea that Donald Trump's action were "very intimidating". More bad television showed up on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, and, on that day, news networks broadcast a press conference headed by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, who announced the release of an impeachment-inquiry document that ran about 300 pages. Adam Schiff put forth the idea that putting the document together was an "enormous task". In addition, Adam Schiff put forth other crap, such as "...This report chronicles a scheme by the President of the United States [Donald Trump] to coerce an ally, ah, Ukraine, ah, that is at war with an adversary, Russia, into doing the plesiden, president's political dirty work. Ah, it involves a scheme in which Donald Trump withheld official acts, a White House meeting as well as hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military assistance in order to compel that power to deliver two investigations that he believed would assist his reelection campaign....". Stop! Adam Schiff was once again pushing lies. The aid in the form of money was released before the date that had been set to be the delivery date by the U.S. Congress. In addition, no investigations had been held by President Zelensky's government before the aid in the form of money was released by the United States of America to Ukraine. Keep in mind--A president of the United States of America has the power to not release money if it is felt the country that would receive the money would be acting against the United States of America, and the president of the United States of America has the power to get investigations set up with Ukraine by Ukraine officials because of a treaty between the United States of America and Ukraine. Also, Adam Schiff pushed out--"...At the same time, there was something President Trump desperately wanted and believed he needed, and that was an investigation that would damage the rival that he feared apparently the most in Joe Biden, as well as a investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine--not Russia--that interfered in our last election....". Stop! It was more crap from Adam Schiff, who was selling the idea that the theory was a Russian narrative. Yet, there is the Politico article of January 2017 [Vogel, Kenneth P., and David Stern. "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." politico.com, 11 January 2017, 05:05 am. EST.] to discredit Adam Schiff. Hold it! Remember--What was the interference in the United States of America election, given proof shows no votes were changed by Russia or Ukraine in the election in the United States of America? To me, the interference was basically advertising (if that). Adam Schiff also pushed out--"...That scheme, however, was discovered, ah, because--among other things--a courageous person stepped forward and blew the whistle....". Stop! The so-called whistleblower--Eric Ciaramella--did not hear the telephone call of July 25, 2019, the transcript of which has been released to the public and which shows nothing bad. Why has not the whistleblower testified in public to help the American people understand what the whistleblower is? That is it! I stop here with the Adam Schiff sham television event of December 3, 2019, which was also used, for example, to sell the crappy idea that Donald Trump does not act with the interests of the American people at heart. Then on December 4, 2019, the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, headed by Jerrold Nadler (a Democrat related to New York), had a hearing with four professors about impeachment, and the four professors were Noah Feldman (of Harvard Law School), Michael Gerhardt (of the University of North Carolina), Pamela Karlan (of Stanford Law School), and Jonathan Turley (of George Washington University), and the four persons had nothing in the way of fact to offer in relation to, for example, the telephone call of July 25, 2019, and they could only add opinions and feelings to, for example, theoretical situations in questions, and the event was nothing but more sham television as a rule to sell images and fluff, but Jonathan Turley did put a damper on the event, such as by sort of putting down some things, especially in relation to proving "bribery"* and "obstruction of justice"** [Note: While excluding Jonathan Turley, who is a "liberal law professor and long-time civil libertarian" ["Jonathan Turley." Wikipedia, 4 December 2019.] for the moment, I report that three of the persons are clearly anti-United States Constitution people, being socialists or communists, and they cannot be trusted. For instance, Wikipedia notes that Pamela Karlan is a "liberal legal scholar" and a "snarky, bisexual, Jewish woman" ["Pamela S. Karlan. Wikipedia, 4 December 2019.], and the Harvard Law School, at which Noah Feldman so-called teaches, is a communistic-socialistic entity, where, for instance, Barack Hussein Obama spent time. I note that the three persons are three freaks, especially Pamela Karlan.]. The United States of America is not a "communistic republic," and yet on December 4, 2019, communistic Pamela Karlan pushed out this bullshit, in relation to talking about reading all the transcripts of the live hearings--"...So I'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor I don't care about those facts. But everything I read on those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited--indeed demanded--foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance....". Pamela Karlan pushed a lie, given she stands for and it seems to me pledges allegiance to communism and socialism and progressivism, being a "liberal," and "liberal" (in her terms) means communist and socialist and progressive. I have to add that the event of December 4, 2019, was more "monkey trial" bits, in which, for instance, Pamela Karlan, while always speaking in an angry format, pushed forth useless historical notes and feelings and even wrong information, and the witnesses--so-called "testifying"--tried to stand up for The United States Constitution as something that they feel is great, and Noah Feldman pushed out the idea that Donald Trump abused his power, saying "...On the basis of the testimony and the evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency...." [Note: The sentence structure is defective, by the way, lacking the correct subject.], and Michael Gerhardt also pushed out the idea that Donald Trump abused his office, saying, "...An, and I just, ah, wanna stress that, if this--what, if what we're talkin' about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. This is precisely the misconduct that the Framers created a constitution, included impeachment, to protect against....", and a general theme of the television event--a staged event--was Donald Trump did not put the interests of the nation first, though there were no facts presented to prove the push. Then, on Thursday, December 5, 2019, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat related to California and the head of the U.S. House of Representatives) was on television and in public, commenting about the idea that the impeachment process seems to be going so fast now--"...This has been a couple of years--two-and-a-half--since the, ah, initial investigation of the U.S., the Russian involvement in America's election, which started much of this and led to other things. This isn't about Ukraine. This is about Russia, who benefitted by our withholding, withholding of that military assistance. Russia! This is about Russia! And sometimes people say--'Well, I don't know about Ukraine, I don't know that much about Ukraine.' Well, our adversary is Russia! All roads lead to Putin!'....". Hold it! During the time of Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president, Hillary Clinton was involved in the "Uranium One Scandal," which resulted in Russia getting control of some U.S. uranium, and during the time of Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president, Russia took over a part of Ukraine, and where was Barack Hussein Obama (a communist, like the leaders of Russia) during these times to fight against Russia if Russia is the adversary? Nancy Pelosi pushed more crap about the impeachment theme related to Donald Trump, and Nancy Pelosi showed the history impeachment process wish by Democrats goes back way before Donald Trump could have even done anything as a president, such as way back before the famous telephone call of July 25, 2019. Then on Monday, December 9, 2019, even more live testimony was given before the American public, pushed out by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, and, for instance, Daniel Goldman (a "democratic counsel") was a so-called witness in the morning, and Daniel Goldman pushed out such ideas as U.S. President Donald Trump obstructed ("an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of justice" against) the U.S. Congress by not giving to the U.S. Congress (or some units of the U.S. House of Representatives) requested documents [though a U.S. president is not beholden to to outright give out such materials] and U.S. President Donald Trump is a threat to free and fair elections in the United States of America, and the morning of the day was more lies dressed up with an authoritative face, and Daniel Goldman pushed out the idea that you should look at all the evidence in context related to, for instance, Donald Trump's "month's-long scheme" to deceive, but--I note--history shows that Donald Goldman was not looking at all the evidence in context, such as the fact that a president has the right to go to court to protect the office of the U.S. president and block the U.S. Congress's work to make a U.S. president a puppet to the U.S. Congress (which is related to the separation of powers of the main branches of the United States of America). Daniel Goldman pushed out the idea that Donald Trump did not actually want an investigation of the Bidens by President Zelensky but only wanted publicity that came from an announcement of a possible investigation of the Bidens and Donald Trump was involved in a "pressure campaign" on President Zelensky. Generally speaking, on December 9, 2019, Daniel Goldman was used by the Democrats in at least the U.S. House of Representatives to run an overview of lies and such that had been put out by, for example, so-called witnesses at the recent live hearings conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives, such as by Marie Yovanovitch and Pamela Karlan. The morning session, which was devoted to information from the Democrats, lasted about two hours and a half, and then there was a hiatus, and then Republicans got to pass along a rebuttal through a counsel, Stephen Castor. Stephen Castor reported as a general thought that the Democrats have passed along evidence that is speculation or presumption or hearsay [which this document has shown is correct information], and he presented thoughts to counter the Democrats' information. Hold it! When the Democrats had control of presenting stuff--in the morning--they presented video of Donald Trump's talking about having Russia find Hillary Clinton's missing 30,000-or-so emails, and Donald Trump's thought about the emails--which good people know were a part of a joke--took place when Donald Trump was yet only running to be the U.S. president (particularly on July 27, 2016), so why was the video presented, since the joke has no relation to any day that Donald Trump was the U.S. president between January 2017 and December 2019? In the afternoon of December 9, 2019, Daniel Goldman and Stephen Castor went through a question-and-answer session, and something odd happened, and it was that a man named Barry H. Berke got to do questioning while sitting next Jerrold Nadler--Barry H. Berke (a "Democratic counsel") had started out the day as a witness in the hearing, and Stephen Castor (a "Republican counsel") did not get to sit with the U.S. Representatives of the committee and ask questions of Barry H. Berke or any person in the afternoon or at any time. By the way, U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren (a Democrat) pushed out the idea to Daniel Goldman that U.S. President Donald Trump has not provided any information to the U.S. House of Representatives to prove his innocence, trying to give the impression Donald Trump must have no evidence or is hiding something, even though the impeachment-inquiry tactic is not following true impeachment procedures (which would, for one, allow U.S. President Donald Trump to present his witnesses and evidence and question witnesses against him), and the Democrats pushed the crap and tried to sell the idea that Joseph Biden (as a vice president of the United States of America) pushed for the firing of a Ukraine prosecutor with backing of other governments, which--I say then--means not Joseph Biden alone but Joseph Biden (in association with U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama) and members of other countries were involved in using bribery to get rid of someone in a prosecution job in Ukraine (and that is still bribery) [Note: Why would leaders of other countries and U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden and U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama worry about a single prosecutor in Ukraine, who is not actually a leader in the Ukraine, such as as a prime minister or a president (who can be involved in setting down laws in Ukraine), and who is only involved in internal matters of Ukraine? The argument of the Democrats that Joseph Biden was working for international interests does not make sense! I state that a bunch of countries do not get together to get rid of a single prosecutor in a particular country.]. On the evening of December 9, 2019, the hearing ended, ending some nine hours later and ending as a "show trial" or a "monkey trial" under the leadership of Jerrold Nadler, who, early in the day, had ruled the committee or he would not follow a real rule of the U.S. House of Representatives, a rule known as "Rule XI" (or the "Minority Witness Rule"), which gave the minority party in the U.S. House of Representatives one day to present witnesses chosen by the minority party during a hearing or hearings related to a subject, and I can say--And so went "the rule of law" (under the Democrats (or communists or socialists)) out the door. And that is where my reporting about the impeachment theme with live hearings has to be ended for this edition of Television History and Trivia.
[Note: In the end, a good and smart person has to ask the self about the telephone call of July 25, 2019, between President Trump and President Zelensky, which at least President Trump knew had people listening in to live and which would be put in historical records (such as in transcript form)--Why would Donald Trump do an impeachable action right out in the open with people listening? Of course, communists and socialists and progressives--the Democrats--would say that Donald Trump's action is to be expected since Donald Trump is a really, really stupid man, though I say that facts do not bear that out. And the freaks--society killers--will continue the fake story.]
[* = I have to talk about "bribery" here. In the case of bribery in relation to a U.S. president, bribery would be a situation in which some country gives money or something to the U.S. president, and then the U.S. president is beholden to the other country and puts the interests of the other country before the interests of the United States of America. Nothing like that can be alleged to exist in relation to, for example, the telephone call of July 25, 2019, and the issue of Joe Biden. "Bribery" has no place in the discussion of Donald Trump and impeachment.]
[** = I have to talk about "obstruction of justice" or "obstruction of Congress." Jonathan Turley pointed out that there are three equal main parts of the federal government--the Legislative Branch (with the U.S. Congress), the Executive Branch (headed by the U.S. president), and the Judicial Branch (with, for one, the U.S. Supreme Court), and he noted that a president is not required to supply the U.S. Congress with stuff, such as documents or even employees of the Executive Branch, at the will or whim of the U.S. Congress (or a committee of the U.S. Congress), and a U.S. president can go to courts (filing a case or cases) to see whether or not the U.S. president must supply the U.S. Congress with particular stuff. Remember--The U.S. president is not an employee of the U.S. Congress. Donald Trump did take issues to the court, and such actions (doing court actions) by Donald Trump are not impeachable offenses, and also Donald Trump in relation to the so-called "Robert Mueller investigation" provided an incredible amount of documents. I report that a committee of the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Congress--as a unit or thing--is not a dictator that can order a U.S. president around at will.]
The previous big block of text is enough information from me to show that the live hearings on television were a sham from the Democrats (communists and socialists and such), and I could have put more about the subject in the section, but I shall leave the other ideas to other writers, such as those who will have the resources and contacts to write long books about the subject and tell the real truth fully. I report that I have a document on the Internet that is a reading-list document, urging you to see a number of books, such as those that show up the rottenness of the Robert Mueller investigation of Donald Trump. That document will probably some time soon report on at least one book that will fully discuss the hearings and the crap that was being pushed through the hearings by the enemies of the good people of the United States of America, such as the non-communists and non-socialists. The reading-list document can be reached through this link--Reading.
Every Sunday evening, the Fox News Channel airs a television program called Life, Liberty & Levin. On Sunday, December 8, 2019, Mark R. Levin (the host of the television show and the host of a nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Mark Levin Show) had a man named Alan Dershowitz as the guest (for one hour). Alan Dershowitz, who is a "liberal/socialist", who is a famous lawyer, and had not voted for Donald Trump to be a U.S. president, put down the impeachment process being conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives. I urge you to hunt down the program, such as through Twitter in relation to Mark R. Levin or Life, Liberty and Levin.
Incidentally, on Monday, December 9, 2019, the Office of the Inspector General (of the federal government), which was headed by Michael Horowitz (a Barack Obama appointee), issued a report in relation to, for one, FISA applications with respect to the Donald Trump election campaign, and, for one, the report did not find, in essence, any political bias or motivation related to the idea of surveillance, which Mark R. Levin talked about on his radio show on the day and put down as foolishness, and on the day, some people discovered that, for one, U.S. Attorney John Durham had issued a statement on the day that he is not in agreement with the "IG Report" ("BREAKING: John Durham issues statement saying he does NOT agree with IG Report conclusions...". The Right Scoop, 9 December 2019, 1:42 p.m..). [Note: You are urged to listen to the podcast of the episode of The Mark Levin Show for Monday, December 9, 2019.]
I have to report on a famous media subject here--fake news or suppressed news or slanted news. On Wednesday, December 4, 2019, the Detroit Free Press had an article (Jansen, Bart, and Christal Hayes. "Report: Evidence is 'overwhelming.'" Detroit Free Press, 4 December 2019, pp. 1A and 7A.) about the release of the roughly 300-page report about impeachment and Donald Trump that had been released the previous day, and the story was front and center on the front page of the newspaper, and there was a photograph of Donald Trump sitting in a car [Note: I bet the photograph was chosen, since it sort of gives the impression Donald Trump is alone or is now an outcast.]. The article was a staged piece, implying Donald Trump is guilty of something (especially to those who only glance at the front page at a news stand or a grocery store or whatever). One piece of text on the front page of the story noted--"'The evidence of the President's misconduct is overwhelming, and so too is the evidence of his obstruction of Congress,' the 300-page report said.". [Note: Think back to the big paragraph of this document and the "note" stuff.] Then, on Thursday, December 5, 2019, on page 11A, the Detroit Free Press had an article entitled "Fiery disagreements flare up as impeachment is considered" (Mascaro, Lisa, and Mary Clare Jalonick. "Fiery disagreements flare up as impeachment is considered." Detroit Free Press, 5 December 2019, p. 11A.), and only a third of the article was related to the hearing of the previous day, and much of the article was about whether or not U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi was going to get impeachment articles issued against Donald Trump. Here is what the newspaper article had in relation to Mr. Feldman, Ms. Karlan, and Mr. Gerhardt of the hearing--"The three legal experts called by Democrats backed impeachment. Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor, said he considered it clear that the president's conduct met the definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Pamela Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor and former Obama administration Justice Department official, said the president's action constituted an especially serious abuse of power 'because it undermines democracy itself.'". Here is the material pertaining to Jonathan Turley that the article passed along--"Republican witness Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said the Democrats were bringing a 'slipshod impeachment' case against the president, but he didn't excuse the president's behavior. ' It is not wrong because President Trump is right,' Turley said. 'A case for impeachment could be made, but it cannot be made on this record.'". So the Detroit Free Press made a big deal of the impeachment theme on one day and downplayed the theme on the next day (when, really, Jonathan Turley had blown up the impeachment theme, as I have shown in the long paragraph above). Why did not the Detroit Free Press cover the ideas about "obstruction of justice" or "obstruction of Congress" in relation to Jonathan Turley, as I have in this document?
In past T.H.A.T. documents, I have talked about Nolan Finley, who is, for one, an editorial writer at The Detroit News [Note: Nolan Finley's name appears in T.H.A.T. #69, T.H.A.T. #87, T.H.A.T. #99, T.H.A.T. #126, and T.H.A.T. #154.]. Nolan Finley pushes out the idea, such as through television shows of the Detroit area, that he is a "Republican," but I have shown that he is a low-level thinker and an enemy of good people. By the way, Nolan Finley had a regular radio show on 910AM Superstation of the Detroit area for two years, ending in August 2019. On Sunday, November 17, 2019, Nolan Finley had an article in The Detroit News entitled "Let's just impeach everyone" [Finley, Nolan. "Let's just impeach everyone." The Detroit News, 17 November 2019, p. 30A.], and here is some material from the article (an opinion)--"...What we saw during last week's hearings confirms there are no white hats in this impeachment fight. No one purely motivated. And the only righteousness on display is self-righteousness. Picking sides is a pointless exercise that serves to perpetuate the poisonous partisanship ruining our country. We should stop pretending there's virtue on one side of this enterprise and evil on the other and accept the reality that two things can be true at once. Donald Trump can be an immoral scoundrel who abused the power of the presidency in pressuring a foreign country to help take down a political rival. I believe that. And Adam Schiff can be a scheming weasel who's had the impeachment papers on his desk for three years just waiting to fill in the blanks. I believe that, too. I put nothing past Trump, the most dishonorable president to ever hold the office. His moral compass is without a needle. Even in this vulgar social media age, Trump's coarseness is unacceptable for an American president....". Based on the paragraph about the hearings that exists in this document, based in information in T.H.A.T. #187 about Adam Schiff's actions, based on information in T.H.A.T. #186 about Adam Schiff's actions, and based on all the documents that I have on the Internet about Barack Hussein Obama that show Barack Hussein Obama's rottenness, a good and smart person can see and deduce that Nolan Finley's ideas about Donald Trump--such as Donald Trump abused his office and Donald Trump is the "most dishonorable president to every hold the office"--are full of shit. When you see Nolan Finley in print or on television, such as as a co-host of One Detroit (of WTVS-TV, Channel 56.1, Detroit, Michigan), understand that you are seeing a highly stupid and rotten man, masquerading as something smart and great and worthwhile. Nolan Finley is your enemy, as are socialists and communists and progressives and Shariaists.
Here is a reminder about socialists and communists and their ways of life for people . Walls were built by Russia to keep East Germans in. North Korea has walls to keep people from escaping. Cuba does not allow people (so-called citizens) to leave, and people have to flee in rickety boats and such. If communism is so great, why do people try to flee it?
Face the Nation is a weekly CBS-TV show, and on Sunday, December 1, 2019, I caught a portion of the show, and the portion was loaded with idiocy. For example, one portion had an interview with a so-called presidential-historian whose current book in publication is The American Story, and that person was David Rubenstein. One thought pushed out by David Rubenstein noted that a president should learn about what we have done right and what he have done wrong as a country, but David Rubenstein made no comment about, for example, what was wrong. It was an interview of fluff, and nothing useful was presented. And then, there was sort of a round-table discussion of fluff and nonsense with, for example, Ruth Marcus (the writer of Supreme Ambition: Brett Kavanaugh and the Conservative Takeover (a book) and a writer at The Washington Post, the communistic entity), Michael Duffy (of The Washington Post, a communistic entity), and Susan Page (of USA Today), who pushed out how the witnesses of the previous two weeks of the live impeachment-inquiry hearings were useful, and another guest was John Meacham, another so-called presidential historian (whose current book in publication is The Soul of America) who pushed out the nonsense that "impeachment" can be anything that the U.S. House of Representatives defines it to be (a theme taken from the long-dead U.S. Presidential Gerald Ford), and that idea is bullshit, since the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Congress does not have the ultimate power to define impeachable actions, which, if allowed, could be anything in the universe, from chewing gum to putting down a communistic leader. Of the portion of Face the Nation that I saw, people worked--through stealth--to put down U.S. president Donald Trump, and that was the main goal.
By the way, I caught John Meacham on an episode of Washington Week of PBS on Friday, November 29, 2019, and he pushed out the goofy Gerald Ford theme about how "impeachment" reasons can be anything the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Congress wants them to be, and that is a false idea, as documents of history (such as those related to the founding of this country, The Federalist Papers) show, and the episode of Washington Week was used to attack--though not in a heavy-handed nature--U.S. President Donald Trump, and another person interviewed on the program was Maggie Haberman of the communistic network known as CNN, and Maggie Haberman pushed out nonsense about, for example, Donald Trump's not doing self-examination about himself, such as in relation to his behavior, and Donald Trump's working to get the Republican Party to bend to his will, which she hinted was bad (and which I note is not bad, since many upper-level members of the Republican Party have been supporting the ways of the Democratic Party, such as communism, and not taking on the rotten people of the Democratic Party by backing U.S. President Donald Trump).
[Note: I could spend hours showing up the rottenness of what was said by people on the episode of Face the Nation and the episode of Washington Week that I caught, since there is more that could be covered.]
And I have this section as a "for-the-record" section. On Sunday, December 8, 2019, U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (a "Democrat") was on the weekly television series called Meet the Press (of NBC-TV). One theme that Jerrold Nadler pushed forth was that seventy-percent of the people of America think U.S. President Donald Trump did some type action that was "very wrong". And I report that that is more crap from Jerrold Nadler, which I have knocked down through this document and others that I have existing on the Internet at the home of The Hologlobe Press. [Note: We shall see what the next national election really shows about the American public, though many in the American public already have bought the lies and crap from the Democrats and many people in the main media of several years now.]
Here is what was originally put in T.H.A.T., Edition No. 189 (of January 10, 2020):
Here is another one of those sections to note whether or not your favorite television newscast or favorite television newscaster is crap. On Monday, December 9, 2019, the Office of the Inspector General (headed by Michael Horowitz (who had been appointed to the job by Barack Hussein Obama)) of the federal government released an "IG Report" (the informal name) to the public, and this document focused on whether or not FISA court warrants were obtained illegally by the FBI (allowing the FBI to do spying illegally). For one, the report passed along the idea that people did indeed obtain warrants through corrupt means, such as by giving misinformation to FISA Court judges. FISA warrants are special warrants that authorize special spying on people, such as through telephone taps, and the reason FBI people (then under the ultimate control of U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama) wanted FISA rulings in their favor was to spy on the Donald Trump election campaign. A FISA court rejected the first application for warrants to spy, and in the second attempt to get warrants, the FISA court was given the "Steele Dossier" or the "Trump Dossier," which the filers (such as FBI higher-ups) knew was fake (one part of which was the fake naked-Donald Trump incident) and which had been created by, for one, Hillary Clinton, from whom at least some funds to make the dossier had come, and the fake "dossier" persuaded the FISA court to issue warrants to spy. The "FISA Report" talked about 17 major problems with the process to get FISA warrants issued. On Monday, December 9, 2019, U.S. Attorney Durham, who was then involved in another investigation related to the FISA matter, released a statement, noting that he disagreed with conclusions of the IG Report ["BREAKING: John Durham issues statement saying he does NOT agree with IG Report conclusions." The Right Scoop, 9 December 2019, 1:42 p.m..], and on the same day, Mark R. Levin (a well-known lawyer who hosts a nationally syndicated radio show known as The Mark Levin Show and who hosts a television show called Life, Liberty & Levin on the Fox News Channel) showed his disappointed with the IG Report through his radio show, hinting that the idea that there was no "political bias" in the people who applied for the FISA warrants, as reported in the IG Report, was defective.* In addition, the Attorney General of the United States of America--William Barr--went public, and he announced, for instance, that the FBI was involved in "an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken...." [Melendez, Pilar. "Bill Barr Slams IG Report: FBI's Suspicions Were 'Insufficient' To Justify Trump Probe." The Daily Beast, 9 December 2019, 1:45 p.m..]. Remember--On December 9, 2019, the Judiciary Committee (headed by Jerrold Nadler) of the U.S. House of Representatives held a live hearing, and the hearing was televised, and a main purpose of the hearing was to use Democratic Party counsels related to the U.S. House of Representatives to once again sell reasons to the American public why U.S. President Donald Trump should be impeached, and the Democratic Party counsels might be considered witnesses by some people, but the counsels did not really add testimony and facts related to their having seen something done wrong by Donald Trump, and they could only restate hearsay and such that had been presented by, for instance, witnesses appearing at the live hearings held by the U.S. Houses of Representatives that were broadcast in November 2019. In November and December 2019 at least, the members of the Democratic Party, especially in the U.S. Congress, were pushing the idea that Donald Trump is rotten, such as because Donald Trump had been involved in bribing a president of Ukraine, had been involved in concluding with Russia to affect a U.S. election, and is involved in affecting the next election. Then, on Tuesday, December 10, 2019, the Democratic Party, through the U.S. House of Representatives, issued two articles of impeachment on U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and one of the articles noted that (1) Donald Trump did things and is doing things to put fair elections in the United States of America in jeopardy and (2) Donald Trump is hiding his so-called illegal deeds from the U.S. Congress by not supplying documents and people that were wanted by the U.S. House of Representatives through subpoenas issued by some committees of the U.S. House of Representatives [Ward, Jon. "'He endangers the constitution': Democrats Unveil Impeachment Articles." Yahoo! News, 10 December 2019, 9:48 a.m. EST.]. [Note: The issuing of articles of impeachment did not include a theme of bribery by Donald Trump, and a good and smart person could deduce the pushers of impeachment could not issue an article about bribery because the American public was aware of a story tied to Joseph Biden (who was running to be the next U.S. president) who had publicly acknowledged the taking place of an event while he was the U.S. vice president (under U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama) that looked well like bribery]. If your favorite television newscaster or newscast did not cover what I have in this paragraph, then your favorite television newscaster or newscast is at least defective, and the newscaster or newscast could be your enemy.
[* = Note: When I heard the idea about no "political bias," I thought about how James Comey (as the FBI director) had pushed out the idea at a press conference (on July 5, 2016) that Hillary Clinton--who was running to be a U.S. president--should not be prosecuted for anything in relation to what was informally called the "Emails Scandal," which involved using private computer servers. James Comey noted in the press conference--"...Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case....". What James Comey did was rotten!]
By the way, Brenda Lawrence hinted how she has been a supporter of using the "Emoluments Clause" of The United States Constitution to get rid of Donald Trump as the U.S. president, though a good and smart person is well aware the "Emoluments Clause" has no bearing on any action related to Donald Trump, and she worked to sell this lie on the show--she would have been involved in impeaching U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama if he had done what Donald Trump did, and it was a theme that Adam Schiff (the well-known liar, as I have proven in recent T.H.A.T. documents) pushed out on This Week on the same day.
Hold it! On Sunday, December 15, 2019, Fox News Sunday was on the air, hosted by Chris Wallace. One portion of the program had Chris Wallace interviewing the discredited James Comey, who was once the director of the FBI. It is clear that Chris Wallace showed up James Comey as an idiot and a rotten man. Since the interview was loaded with stuff that showed how rotten James Comey is, I cannot do a good discussion of the rottenness here. I recommend that you see a YouTube video entitled "Comey: 'I was wrong to say FISA process was 'followed'".
Hey, did your favorite television newscaster tell you a more complete story about the Donald J. Trump comment of last month about the dead John Dingell? On December 18, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress held a vote on two issues to impeach U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and around the time that the votes to impeach or not to impeach were being taken on that day, U.S. President Donald J. Trump was at a rally in Battle Creek, Michigan. A t one point during the press event, Donald J. Trump spoke these words while discussing Debbie Dingell and the time around John Dingell's death and displaying the U.S. flag in relation to John Dingell:--"...I said, 'That's okay, don't worry about it.' Maybe, he's looking up. I don't know....". Soon after the words were spoken, people around the country, such as Debbie Dingell (a U.S. Representative and the former wife of John Dingell) complained, such as to the media, that Donald J. Trump was hinting John Dingell was in hell, though the word "hell" was never spoken by Donald J. Trump. I say--So what if Donald J. Trump pushed the idea that John Dingell was in hell? I state--John Dingell supported communism and socialism, such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. John Dingell was a society killer. Hold it! On January 4, 2019, U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib (a racist against Jews, as history shows, and a pusher of Islam for the country, siding with, for one, U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar) said in relation to U.S. President Donald J. Trump--"...We're going to go in to impeach the motherfucker!....". In January 2016, after Donald J. Trump reported that he would not like to be in a foxhole with U.S. Senator John McCain (a "Republican" who supported the ways of communism and socialism) and U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (a rotten Republican), John Dingell noted on his Twitter account--"...Please take two running jumps and go to hell, Mr. Trump." On December 21, 2018, John Dingell pushed this out on Twitter in relation to U.S. President Donald Trump--"Sit on it, you imbecile.". And on December 24, 2018, the ill-mined John Dingell pushed forth on his Twitter spot--"....We've had presidents of almost every stripe, but this one will be remembered as the smallest and most vile. A petty man with no interest in the greater good for us all....". By the way, the term "greater good" (used by John Dingell) is a common term used by hard-line communists. The "greater good" is the society or, really, the government (especially the ways of the communistic and socialistic politician), and the individual is shit, as the communists believe. Anyone who thinks U.S. President Donald J. Trump's comment about John Dingell on December 18, 2019, was bad is a person giving help to communists and socialists and Shariaists (the followers of Sharia, which is a shitty political system masquerading as a religion with the shit-ass figurehead known as Allah). In addition, I must report that, recently, Katie Hill (a Democrat) resigned as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for what were reported to be "inappropriate sexual relationship" stuff tied to staffers, and on December 17, 2019, Katie Hill appeared at an impeachment rally in Los Angeles, California, and at the rally, Katie Hill said--"...It's time to impeach the motherfucker!". Let me get back to some complainers about what Donald Trump said. On Friday, December 20, 2019, the Detroit Free Press pushed out two articles to put down U.S. President Donald Trump's statement (Dickerson, Brian. "Trump's attack on Dingell shows how low he will go." Detroit Free Press, 20 December 2019, p. 15A.; Spangler, Todd. "Even some of Trump's allies think he should apologize for Dingell insult." Detroit Free Press, 20 December 2019, pp. 1A and 7A.), and both articles passed along crap. The article by Todd Spangler pushed out the idea that U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (a Republican) was pushing for an apology by U.S. President Donald Trump, though U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham had not heard the statement by U.S. President Donald Trump, and the article had information from U.S. Representative Fred Upton (a Republican), who, in the past, had sided with the Democrats, and the article did not push out things that had been called U.S. President Donald Trump, such as by the dead John Dingell. The article by Brian Dickerson passed along such crap as--"It is a truth grimly acknowledged by veterans of armed combat that soldiers under fire, like infants and incontinent nursing home residents, are sometimes helpless to the control their bodily functions. That is the inglorious phenomenon viewers witnessed Wednesday night when a president under siege fouled himself in a spasmodic outburst of indecency, lashing out on live television against a deceased Michigan congressman and his still-grieving widow...." and "...Like so much of the slander he spews, Trump's insinuation....." and "...But in Trump's ethically disordered world...." and "...To linger on the president's indecency would be to belabor the obvious....". I state that Brian Dickerson provided no proof of, for instance, Donald Trump's "ethically disordered world" and "indencecy" and events of "slander", and there is no proof [Note: I wonder if Brian Dickerson pushes the nonsense idea--in relation to "indencency"--that showed up in the "Steele Dossier" about Donald Trump having been naked while pissing on a bed in Russia, which good and smart people know is a lie.]. Brian Dickerson, whom I have talked about in the past (such as in T.H.A.T. #158 (which can be reached through this T.H.A.T. #158 link) and T.H.A.T. #173 (which can be reached through this T.H.A.T. #173 link)), is a shit.
Here is what was originally put in T.H.A.T., Edition No. 190 (of February 10, 2020):
More bad television related to the so-called impeachment process of U.S. President Donald J. Trump has shown up since I published the previous edition of Television History and Trivia, and, really, the events fit in with others that I have talked about over the last four editions of Television History and Trivia. On Wednesday, January 15, 2020, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives--Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat related to California)--held a press conference to talk about the "House managers" who will be involved with the impeachment process in the U.S. Senate. The press event opened with Nancy Pelosi saying--"Good morning, everyone. This is a very important day for us....". What followed next were sentences and phrases that came off as collage of mumbling and rambling and stumbling by Nancy Pelosi, who often had stall moments while speaking [Note: I watched and listened to the press event, and often I was not sure what word she spoke, and I reached the point where I knew I could not easily offer in a Television History and Trivia document or any document quotations from her, since I could not be sure if I was quoting her correctly.]. Nancy Pelosi pushed out some rambling related to historical events (sort of of the past in the United States of America), and she seemed to have a theme related to "time". I can say that a person with an ordered mind, who was trying to follow her train of thought, found her history section to be a confusing mess or an unclear mess. Nancy Pelosi also tried to sell the idea that new proof of Donald Trump's guilt had come out since the date that the U.S. House of Representatives had held the vote to impeach U.S. President Donald J. Trump (December 18, 2019). Nancy Pelosi pushed out such statements as "...This is about The Constitution of the United States...." and "...And it's importantcy the president to know and Putin to know, the American voter, voters in America should decide who our president is, not that Vadamir Plutin--Putin--in Russia...." and "...I'm very proud to present the managers who will bring the case, which we have great confidence in in terms of impeaching the president and his removal...." [Note: That is enough of my quoting from Nancy Pelosi, based on what you can see in what I was able to sort of put together from her mumbling a stumbling of a few words. By the way, Nancy Pelosi should have said something more like "Vladimir Putin", the correct name.]. The "managers" turned out to be U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (the well-known big-time liar), U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler, U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren, U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries, U.S. Representative Val Demings, U.S. Representative Jason Crow, and U.S. Representative Sylvia Garcia, all of who were, of course, Democrats. The following day--January 16, 2020-- the American public got to see on some television networks live events, and one had U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (the "lead manager" of the seven "managers") reading a document on the floor of the U.S. Senate, noting, for example, what the two articles of impeachment against U.S. President Donald J. Trump are, and I state that the document had more nonsense, presented in a formal manner. Early in the reading, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff said in relation to "abuse of power"--"...The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors....". U.S. Representative Adam Schiff pushed out, for one, the idea that U.S. President Donald J. Trump did--through a "scheme" or "course of conduct"--actions to force Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election, and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff worked to sell the idea that Ukraine was pressured to investigate former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden, who was running to be a candidate of the Democratic Party for the U.S. presidency, and that--in at least U.S. Representative Adam Schiff's mind--was conduct that was a high crime or misdemeanor. At one point, U.S. Adam Schiff said--"...In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the intigerity of the United States democratic process....". A smart and good person has to ask how the "democratic process" was "undermined," given it was public knowledge that former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden seemed to be tied to something corrupt in relation to Ukraine while Joseph Biden was the U.S. vice president, which he had admitted publicly had happened, and given a U.S. president has the right--based on a treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine--to have investigations done in relation to possible criminal acts by any U.S. citizen, even a former U.S. vice president? And U.S. Representative Adam Schiff worked to sell--"...He [Donald Trump] thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation!...". U.S. Representative Adam Schiff read off and told lies during the reading, such as "...a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine rather than Russia interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election...." Yes, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff pushed forth the lie that Ukraine was not involved in trying to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, though history shows the Ukraine was. U.S. Representative Adam Schiff talked about U.S. funds not being given to Ukraine properly, though the money did get to Ukraine, under the deadline stipulated by the U.S. Congress--anyway, a U.S. president does at least for a short time have the right to withhold moneys to a foreign country, such as during the process to determine whether or not such foreign country will use the moneys in a way that would not be against the interests of the United States of America. Also, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff pushed out the nonsense that--presently or at the time Adam Schiff was reading the document in the U.S. Senate--U.S. President Donald J. Trump is working to get Ukraine to under take investigations of Joseph Biden, saying that Donald J. Trump "has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to under take investigations for his personal political gain....". Hold it! So is a good person to think that it means, if any U.S. president were to note to Ukraine or any country that an investigation should be done in relation to Joseph Biden, who it seems was involved in corruption, then that U.S. president would be someone who could be put through the impeachment process? In that case, any U.S. person running for office, which can go on for years, could get away with corruption in a foreign land, since if a U.S. president were to start in investigation, then the U.S. president might get put through the impeachment process. [Note: I guess Joseph Biden will never have to worry about getting put through an investigation and could get away free with having done something bad, as Hillary Clinton did while being the U.S. Secretary of State.] A lot of what U.S. Adam Schiff said could be grouped under the heading of "over-sell", as with--"...In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security....". It was noted that U.S. President Trump "...betrayed the nation....". U.S. Representative Adam Schiff read material that noted that U.S. President Donald Trump had "obstructed Congress," by not turning over documents and employees in the Executive Branch of the federal government to particular committees in the U.S. House of Representatives. Hold it! Remember--The U.S. House of Representatives never held any vote that started an official impeachment investigation, and what was going on is that some heads of several committees simply took up holding hearings about impeachment. Given that, U.S. President Donald J. Trump was not obligated by law to simply--at the whims of the heads of some committees in the U.S. House of Representatives--hand over documents and people of the Executive Branch, and what U.S. President Donald J. Trump did was take up court action to see whether or not he was required to hand over documents or people. It manners not whether U.S. Donald J. Trump stopped some or all agencies or departments in the Executive Branch from complying with subpoenas from the U.S. Houses of Representatives, since a U.S. president has the right to withhold stuff till required by a court to hand over what is requested. Hold it! At the time that U.S. Representative Adam Schiff made his presentation in the U.S. Senate, there was no clear evidence that U.S. President Donald J. Trump was tied to a "high crime" or a "misdemeanor"; for example, the U.S. House of Representatives could not actually state any law that U.S. President Donald J. Trump had violated, such as a "bribery" law [Note: Remember--No "article" tied to impeachment was created in relation to "bribery" in the U.S. House of Representatives (such as on December 18, 2019).]. Now, here is the final main theme as read by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff--"...In the history of the Republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors. This abuse of office served to cover up the president's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives. In all of this, President Trump acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of people of the United States. Wherefore, President Trump by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to The Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governness and the rule of law, President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States....". And then U.S. Representative Adam Schiff noted that he was done presenting the two "articles" before the U.S. Senate, and he noted that the "managers" were leaving the U.S. Senate. And, then, it was on January 17, 2020, that American saw--through television--Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts get sworn in as the judge to sit in on and oversee the impeachment process in the U.S. Senate and see U.S. senators sign the "book" of their presence in the U.S. Senate in relation to the impeachment process in the U.S. Senate [Note: To me, many of the senators looked like freaks.].
Commentary -- I do have to note the whole impeachment process related to U.S. President Donald J. Trump does make a point to a good and smart person, and that point is that Democrats, willing to impeach a person as the U.S. president based on lies and bullshit, would be willing to imprison and kill any U.S. citizen based on fake crimes and such--Democrats in the United States of America (who are socialists or communists or liberals or progressives or democratic socialists or Shariaists, all of whom are bad people) are like so many other killers in history, from Adolph Hitler (a socialist) or Mao (a communist).
Then, on Tuesday, January 21, 2020, the impeachment process related to the U.S. Senate began, and there was live television coverage--beginning in earnest in the noon hour--and it must be remembered that the impeachment process in the U.S. Senate was for the "managers" of the U.S. House of Representatives to show why what was voted on as evidence in the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach U.S. President Donald J. Trump should be enough to remove U.S. President Donald Trump from office and for those representing U.S. President Donald J. Trump to show why there is no evidence to put U.S. President Donald J. Trump out of office, and the process--if correctly done and logically done--should not involve getting more evidence, since the U.S. House of Representatives based the impeachment vote on a particular set of pieces of information that was grouped together as evidence (or enough evidence). Around midday on January 21, 2020, U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (a Republican) spoke, such as about rules for the process, and U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (a Democrat) spoke about his dislike for what rules Mitch McConnell had put forth, and other persons spoke, such as the now-famous liar U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (the "head manager" from the U.S. House of Representatives). During the first two hours or so, the Democrats, such as Adam Schiff, pushed forth such ideas as U.S. President Donald J. Trump was the reason the U.S. House of Representatives could not call all witnesses wanted, such as by Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, by blocking all people related to the Executive Branch from testifying (all related to something like "executive privilege" or immunity for senior advisors) and by doing court action, and the Democrats pushed forth the idea that the U.S. House of Representatives alone has the power of the "impeachment" investigation process and the court should have no say in the impeachment process (such as by ruling who or what the U.S. president much give to the U.S. House of Representatives by request [Note: The Democrats did not push forth why, for example, the famous "whistleblower" was never put through the testimony process by the U.S. House of Representatives. Of course, the Democrats went over the top to sell the idea that U.S. Donald J. Trump was a guilty of obstruction of the U.S. Congress, working against the United States of America, The United States Constitution, and more; for example, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer's noted that actions by U.S. President Donald Trump to get the president of Ukraine to do investigations of the Joseph Biden family was a crime, and U.S. President Donald Trump did "everything in his power to cover it up.", and U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer noted that he could not "imagine any other president doing this.", and U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer noted that U.S. President Donald Trump was involved in the process to "deny the right of Congress to conduct oversight" [Note: Good and smart people were aware U.S. President Donald J. Trump did not stop committees in the U.S. House of Representatives from doing investigations, and the U.S. House of Representatives actually concluded investigations and then held an impeachment vote, which led to the U.S. House of Representatives impeaching U.S. President Donald J. Trump.]. In the first few hours, the Democrats once again passed along lies, such as about "obstruction of justice." The big push by the Democrats was to sell the idea that the proceedings as set up by the Republicans in the U.S. Senate were "unfair," and everything was stacked in favor of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and the American public was being sold a sham, and, for instance, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer stated in relation to the rules for the impeachment in the U.S. Senate--"...On something as important as impeachment, the McConnell resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace. This will go down--this resolution--as one of the darker moments in the Senate history, perhaps one of the darkest....". By the way, the Democrats through U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer pushed out the idea that the inability to call witnesses for the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate is wrong, and U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer said--"...A trial without evidence is no trial.". [Note: Of course, a smart and good person who heard U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer's words about "no trial" was aware the live hearings of, for example, November 2019 presented no real evidence and did not have evidence submitted by Republicans or attorneys representing U.S. President J. Donald Trump.] Of course, individuals representing U.S. President Donald J. Trump did get time to speak in the U.S. Senate on this day, such as the famous Jay Sekulow (a well-known lawyer and a man tied to the American Center for Law and Justice). The trial took a break at about 2:50 p.m. (Detroit time). By the way, I was in northern Lower Michigan on January 21, 2020, and when the trial went to break at about 2:50 p.m.--in relation to the commercial broadcast networks--only an affiliate associated with NBC-TV (the most communistic network of the commercial broadcast networks) still had coverage running, having Lester Holt taking with reporters (such as Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Carol Lam (a legal expert of sorts), and Kasie Hunt), which passed along the socialistic/communistic spin on the events up to the moment, such as selling the idea that the Democrats are winning at the moment, and which had useless talk, such as about Chief Justice John Robert's using the gravel. At about 3:18 p.m. (Detroit time), the coverage of the trial proper continued at least on the NBC-TV affiliate that I could see in northern Lower Michigan (and it was not available on the affiliates related to Fox TV, CBS-TV, and ABC-TV that I could pick up), and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff and his associates ("managers") were given up to one hour to talk, and then U.S. President Donald Trump's associates had time, and the topic for both sides focused on an "amendment" related to witnesses and documents. Incidentally, the PBS-associated television station group in northern Lower Michigan--headed by WCMU-TV--was running coverage (even at the recess). At about 4:49 p.m., once again the U.S. Senate went into recess, originally scheduled as a 10-minute period, and the NBC-TV affiliate continued to carry NBC-TV stuff for a few minutes (till about 5:00 p.m.). [Note: I have a reminder here. If Joseph Biden was guilty of something bad in relation to Ukraine, and if an investigation by Ukraine showed that he was guilty, then that would help other Democrats running to be the next U.S. president and would somewhat (maybe) help U.S. President Donald Trump. If Joseph Biden was not guilty of something bad in relation to Ukraine, and if an investigation in Ukraine showed that he was not, then that would not help other Democrats running to be the next U.S. president and would not help U.S. Donald J. Trump. How does an investigation of Joseph Biden hurt the United States of America or the national security of the United States of America? And if Joseph Biden were innocent, he would probably have a rise in his ratings in the eyes of the American public, and that would hurt other Democrats who were running to get the Democratic Party nomination for the U.S. president and hurt U.S. President J. Donald Trump, so it would seem better for U.S. President Donald Trump to have no investigation then, and if Joseph Biden were guilty, the American public would see Joseph Biden as rotten, and that would be good for the American public.] During the day, the Democrats--the "managers"--pushed forth the idea that, if U.S. President Donald J. Trump were innocent and had nothing to hide, then U.S. President Donald J. Trump should release stuff to prove his innocence, but a good and smart person is aware that, in the United States of America, it is not the job of a person accused to prove innocence--it is the job of others (prosecutors) to prove guilt [Note: In a country where a person accused must prove innocence, the person might never be able to ever prove innocence, since prosecutors could always ask for more and more and say that the person is yet hiding something, and it could go on forever. In the United States of America, every person accused is considered innocent till proven guilty. That applies to a U.S. president, too.]. And those are the highlights of the daytime coverage of the impeachment process in the U.S. Senate. More coverage, at least on PBS-associated stations--in relation to the broadcast-television universe--started up after the recess for the U.S. Senate had ended, and, for one, the Democrats (such as through U.S. Representative Val Demings) pushed forth, for example, clips from the hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives of 2019, which had no real useful information to show U.S. President Donald Trump had done something wrong and against the country--the Democrats repeated fluff and opinions and feelings (such as from ambassadors who testified weeks previously) and had no useful facts. Overall, between noon and about 6:30 p.m., the "managers" (Democrats) were working to convince U.S. Senators to vote to pass a Schumer amendment (Senate Resolution 483) to allow more witnesses and more documents to be presented, and the associates for U.S. President Donald J. Trump worked to have the resolution "tabled" or not passed, and a little after 6:30 p.m., a roll-call vote was held to pass or not pass "483," and the resolution was tabled and not passed (in a vote of 53 to 47). During prime-time for the broadcast networks on January 21, 2020, only PBS had any impeachment coverage, and the recess sessions for PBS were hosted by Judy Woodruff (the main host of PBS NewsHour) and featured such persons as Lisa DesJardins (of, for instance, PBS NewsHour), Yamiche Alcindor (of, for instance, PBS NewsHour), Margaret Taylor (of, for instance, an entity called Lawfare), and John Hart (of, for instance, Mars Hill Strategies) [Note: Mars Hill Strategies is basically a public-relations entity, and Lawfare is sort of a podcast-related entity focusing on national security issues, so I am unaware why John Hart and Margaret Taylor should have been chosen to be on the show, given the impeachment process is unrelated to what John Hart and Margaret Taylor usually focus on daily.]. And although there was more impeachment-process stuff going on in at least prime time (for the East Coast) of January 21, 2020, such as the offering of amendments to the rules for the impeachment process or trial, I stop the discussion of the day here, since my offering any more would be useless, like what the "managers" offered all day.
[Note: Pat Cipollone of the defense team for U.S. President Donald J. Trump noted at one point during the day--"...They're [the managers are] not here to steal one election; they're here to steal two elections. It's buried in the small print of the ridiculous of 'Articles of Impeachment.' They want to remove President Trump from the ballot. They won't tell you that. They don't have the guts to say it directly. But that's exactly what they're here to do. They're asking the Senate to attack one of the most sacred rights we have as American, Americans--the right to choose our president. In an election year, it's never been done before....".]
On January 22, 2020, The View (a weekday daytime series of ABC-TV) had U.S. Representative Val Demings as a guest (right at the open of the show). Whoopi Goldberg started off the questioning, and, for one, Val Demings pushed out the idea that this is "a very critical time for our nation" (which was a vague thought, given she did not define why, which could be about how communists and socialists are using the trial to put down the country and make it a communistic or socialistic entity, which--I bet--is not what she would never want to say). Joy Behar pushed out the idea--before asking a question--that the defense for U.S. President Donald J. Trump had "no coherent defense" for U.S. President Donald J. Trump, which I note was flap doodle. Other members of The View got to asked questions. U.S. Representative Val Demings passed along the same crap as that which had been passed along the previous day in the U.S. Senate by the "managers," such as the idea that the defenders for U.S. President Donald J. Trump by not wanting more evidence and witnesses to be presented must be "afraid of the American people hearing evidence" [Note: Remember--at least--the idea about a person's not having to prove innocence and prosecutors' having to prove guilt.]. So The View pushed along political crap in the interview, and the interview showed the members of The View, who are women with ugly minds, are enemies of good people. [Note: The show did not provide a person representing U.S. President Donald J. Trump or report that the producers of The View had contacted people representing U.S. President Donald J. Trump, who noted they would not appear on the show, so the show was purposely made it seems to be one-sided political television.]
At 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2020, live television coverage of the impeachment process in the U.S. Senate showed up on at least broadcast television networks, such as PBS (calling it The Impeachment Trial), ABC-TV, CBS-TV, and NBC-TV [Note: Cable-news-type networks covered the impeachment process, but I did not look to discover the start times of broadcasts on such networks.]. The day began in earnest a little after 1:00 p.m. with the "managers" offering opening presentations, which were scheduled to go about two hours before a break (a recess) would be taken, and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff was the first to talk on behalf of the "managers" from the U.S. House of Representatives, and it was another day of fluff and over-the-top selling of nothing useful from the "managers," which began with a statement (originally made by Alexander Hamilton of centuries ago) related to history from U.S. Representative Adam Schiff [Note: U.S. Representative Adam Schiff several times looked right at the main camera, while he was at the podium, in certainly a tactical move to reach the audience in television land emotionally, and it made me think he had gotten coaching from someone familiar with television broadcasting since yesterday.]. U.S. Representative Adam Schiff ran off hearsay and circumstantial images--he gave a large impression of things, using, for example, clips from live hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives in late 2019--and only a person (a television watcher) keeping chronological notes could determine what made sense and only a person who kept in mind the live hearings tied to the U.S. House of Representatives of, for example, November 2019, when nothing bad was shown as bad in relation to U.S. President Donald J. Trump, could better understand the fluff that was being presented, and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff ran off a bunch of words and such, pushing out the ideas that Donald Trump believes "...he is above the law...." and had a "scheme" in the works and worked to "compel" Ukraine to take up investigations and "...believes these corrupt acts are acceptable....", and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff tried to sell the idea that withholding the money to Ukraine hurt the ability of the United States of America to protect itself (hurt "national security") [Note: An investigation on Joseph Biden could prove whether or not Joseph Biden would act against the interests of the United States of America as the U.S. president.]. By the way, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff brought out the idea that U.S. President Donald Trump said in public--which he did on a television show hosted by George Stephanopoulos (of ABC-TV)--that he was willing to look at information in the form of dirt from a foreign country on some individual, and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff pushed out the idea that that would be against The U.S. Constitution, since The United States Constitution does not allow a U.S. President Donald Trump to accept a "gift" from a foreign country, but a good and smart person knows that U.S. Representative Adam Schiff's theme was defective, having no relation to The United States Constitution. At about 3:29 p.m. (Detroit time), a recess finally was called--U.S. Representative Adam Schiff having finally ended his speech--and the recess was scheduled to last till about 3.50 p.m. (and, for me, while in northern Lower Michigan, only the NBC-TV affiliate and the CBS-TV of the commercial broadcast stations continued to carry network coverage during the recess). During the break and at about 3:50 p.m., news people interviewed U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, and one thing that U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer said was--"...Any acquittal of Donald Trump will have little value....", hinting the actions in the U.S. Senate by the Republicans to keep Donald J. Trump as the U.S. president would add up to a sham. At about 3:56 p.m., U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (a "manager") began his time at the podium in the U.S. Senate Chamber, and, in essence, all that U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler did was report the same old same old same old, covering what had been heard earlier in the day and on other days, and, for me, only the PBS affiliate and the NBC-TV affiliate carried on with coverage of the event, and U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler flapped his gums till about 4:17 p.m., and then U.S. Representative Sylvia Garcia took up telling the tale from the "managers," and U.S. Representative Sylvia Garcia spoke till about 4:40 p.m., and then U.S. Representative Jason Crow took the podium, and, for me, the NBC-TV affiliate dropped out of coverage at 5:00 p.m., and that left me with only the PBS affiliate with coverage, and U.S. Representative Jason Crow spoke till about 5:26 p.m., and then U.S. Representative Val Demings took over the podium, and U.S. Representative Val Demings pushed along the story from the "managers" till about 5:50 p.m., and then U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries took the podium, and U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries would talk beyond the point at which I quit watching, which was at 6:00 p.m. (so that I could do other things and tune into The Mark Levin Show (a nationally syndicated radio show)) [Note: I heard a lot from the "managers" in the afternoon that I could knock down, and one piece was an idea that U.S. Representative Jason Crow passed along, which was about why only funding was restricted from Ukraine and not other countries that were getting funds, which--I report--does not matter to the subject of Donald Trumps' maybe having done something wrong, given each country is dealt with alone at any given moment, related to what the particular country had done, was doing, or is doing, and U.S. Representative Jason Crow also worked to sell the idea that U.S. President Donald Trump was not taking the advice of associates (such as ambassadors) in relation to foreign matters, though a U.S. president does not have to take the advice or follow the advice of one or many close to him (such as ambassadors), since a U.S. president sets the foreign policy for the Executive Branch and for the country (and a U.S. president does not have to give complete reasons every moment of what is being done), and that makes advisors' disappointments that their president (boss) is not following their advice a mute subject and not a crime designation that can be put upon a U.S. president.]. And at the end of the day, I had yet to hear the "managers" report on television what high crime or misdemeanor was the focus of the impeachment process of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, something like "bribery" or "treason" (such as giving U.S. military secrets to foreign governments) or the imprisoning of American citizens without trials (for fake crimes) or the killing of American citizens (like gassing them or shooting them down in the streets, as has happened in history in rotten countries like China and Germany), et cetera.
The "managers" related to the U.S. House of Representatives had up with three days covering up to 24 hours to present information (such as on television) unhindered by cross-examination or rebuttal in a row, running from Wednesday, January 22, 2020, to Friday, January 24, 2020, and, basically, each day had material presented in the afternoons and evenings (such as prime time), though the commercial broadcast networks skipped offering broadcasts in prime time. For January 23, 2020, the start time for the impeachment process (impeachment trial) in the U.S. Senate began at 1:00 p.m., and the "managers" had nothing new to add on the day, as far as facts, and it was for the most part a rehashing of opinions, such as about what is impeachable, and it was not a show with a lot of facts related to why there was an impeachment of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and the rehashing began with work by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, who started up the process of using what was left of the time remaining for the "managers" in their three-day process (the remaining amount being 16 hours and 42 minutes), and, for instance, the "managers" worked to sell the idea that U.S. President worked to cover up his crimes (repeated crimes) and the idea he believes he can do anything he wants, as if he were a dictator. U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler pushed out the idea that, if U.S. President Donald J. Trump has proof of his innocence in the form of witnesses, then he should urge to have them step forward for the U.S. Senate to see (which is the idea about the accused having to prove innocence, which is a rotten idea for a "free" country for the citizens), and also U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler brought up--while talking about whether or not an impeachable offense has to be an actual "crime"--the subject of U.S. Donald J. Trump's so-called pressure to have the Ukrainians investigate Joseph Biden and his family in relation to corruption in Ukraine, and a good and smart person who was watching the presentation once again had to ask the self--What would U.S. Donald J. Trump gain by pushing for an investigation? [Note: If Joseph Biden were not guilty of any corruption, then Donald J. Trump would not gain anything, such as the loss of an opponent in the upcoming election, and Joseph Biden would look better than he had in the eyes of the American public, and if Joseph Biden were guilty of corrupt, then the people of the United States of America would know Joseph Biden would be a bad U.S. president, and then they could save themselves and the country from having him--a corrupt man--voted into the office of the U.S. presidency. Plus, such an investigation would change no actual votes in the upcoming election and corrupt the election, since the Ukrainians and no other foreign entities could change actual votes at the ballot boxes, such as by adding fake ballots, because the United States of American has a voting system that is not controlled on a national basis, which could be corrupted easily by corrupt people in the national government.] Also, U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler brought up a quotation from Alexander Hamilton (of a letter of August 18, 1792) [Note: The quotation starts out with "When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper....".], which U.S. Representative Adam Schiff had done on Wednesday, January 22, 2020, and the quoted material was sold as something that had ties to the founding of the country and the making of The United States Constitution (which had been ratified or adopted about four years previously the time of the quote from Alexander Hamilton), and the quotation was used to sell the idea that the creators of the country and The United States Constitution were thinking of someone like U.S. President Donald J. Trump of today, though the quotation was not related to the creation of the country officially, so U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler pushed a lie (using Alexander Hamilton, who some what recently had been given publicly and prominence through a stage production called Hamilton). U.S. Representative Sylvia Garcia worked to sell the idea that Joseph Biden (while he was the vice president of the United States of America) did nothing wrong by working to get a general prosecutor fired in Ukraine (which did stop an investigation of the Biden family). Also, the "managers" passed along a lot of bits of clips of people who gave opinions at the live hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives in late 2019, which had no real facts about why U.S. President Donald J. Trump should be removed from office. Near the end of the second day, viewers were yet left with the sense that the only real work done by either Russia or Ukraine to affect the U.S. presidential election of 2016 was related to posting data and words on "social media"--advertising; facts show that neither Russia nor Ukraine affected the voting systems in the United States of America or the vote tallying in the United States of America, and, certainly, the "managers" pushing to say, for example, that foreigners "attacked" the election process fell flat. And in the evening--in the ten o'clock hour--U.S. Representative Adam Schiff ran off the mouth by saying, for one, if Russia were to hack the computers of the Democratic National Committee to affect the next election, do you think U.S. President Donald J. Trump would protect the country and take action against the Russians? It was supposition and useless thought! Also U.S. Representative Adam Schiff even set up a pretend thought about the Chinese doing something. And a good and smart person was well aware U.S. Representative Adam Schiff was going way off the rails with the general theme about Russia and China doing something and U.S. President Donald J. Thump then doing nothing against them, and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff pushed out the idea that U.S. President Donald J. Trump is "dangerous," and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff pushed out the idea that U.S. President Donald J. Trump should be removed from office because he could do something wrong in the future, which--I note--has no relation to why U.S. President Donald J. Trump was impeached and why any person should be removed from an office. A guess about what a person might do is no grounds for impeachment or is no grounds for the person's being removed from an office. The theme was nothing more than imagination at work! And that rotten theme ended the talk by the "managers" for the day, and at about 10:32 p.m., the U.S. Senate went into adjournment. For January 24, 2020, the impeachment-process broadcast began at 1:00 p.m., and it was the third day for the "managers" to offer their "opening arguments" and use the remainder of their time of up to 24 hours over the three days. People who tuned into the "opening arguments" for the third day on television still lacked a clear idea of what "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" meant, having been given no ideas of what either was and what were the limits in real-life terms, such as by good definitions, though the "managers" had already spent two days trying to say that "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" were impeachable offenses, and, of course, the "managers" had not shown how U.S. President Donald J. Trump's so-called supposedly bad actions fit in with any realistic and clear definitions of "abuse of power" or "obstruction of Congress" (vague things for television viewers and even the U.S. Senators). On January 24, 2020, I was in northern Lower Michigan, and for me, television coverage by broadcast television networks (ABC-TV, CBS-TV, NBC-TV, and PBS affiliates) began at 1:00 p.m., and right from the start, for instance, ABC-TV worked to push the idea that a 2018 video recording of U.S. President Donald J. Trump and a man named Lev Parnas--recently uncovered or whatever--shows that U.S. Donald J. Trump wanted the ambassador to Ukraine (Marie Yovanovitch) fired, and the network gave the impression that the video showed something bad, even though it was not, given a U.S. president can fire or remove an ambassador from a job for any reason and at any time. It is noted that the pushing of 2018 video into the news by, for example, the television broadcast networks was to sell the idea that--See there is more evidence that has to be seen, so there should be new witnesses and such presented in the U.S. Senate that go beyond what had been seen in the U.S. House of Representatives leading up to the impeachment vote in December 2019. The third day of talk from the "managers" was more rehash of fluff and more video clips of, for example, people testifying and giving useless opinions before the U.S. House of Representatives in late 2019, which was broadcast on television in live events. The first "manager" to really get to present more so-called evidence on the third day of "opening arguments" was U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries (who--to me--looked like Barack Hussein Obama and who sort of moved as Barack Hussein Obama does when giving speeches, which may have been the reason Hakeem Jeffries was chosen as a "manager" since Hakeem Jeffries might appeal to blacks who watched the television presentations, as Barack Hussein Obama did by being visually likeable, and make blacks take up believing the "managers" and their story). U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries finished his Obama-like presentation a little before 2:00 p.m. (Detroit time), and he was followed by U.S. Representative Jason Crow at the podium, and other "managers" followed U.S. Representative Jason Crow through the afternoon and evening (which had times for recesses). One theme from the "managers" during the day was that the U.S. Donald J. Trump did not follow the advice about foreign-relations things from ambassadors and such, who are only ambassadors and such and not the people who have ultimate say about how foreign-relations business will be conducted in the country--they are only employees and not U.S. presidents. Also the "managers" worked to sell the idea that, basically, U.S. President Donald J. Trump did something wrong by having Rudy Giuliani do some foreign-relations work sort of alone and out of normal foreign-relations channels, which--I state--is not illegal or a crime [Note: The 2018-video thing can be considered "fake news.]. In the evening, U.S. Representative Jason Crow pushed out, for instance, the idea that U.S. President Donald J. Trump "defied subpoenas" as if he were a dictator, which was a part of U.S. Representative Jason Crow's summing up his last speech of the "opening-argument" phase for the "managers." At about 8:47 p.m. (Detroit time), U.S. Representative Adam Schiff began the final presentation related to the "opening-arguments" part by the "managers" of the U.S. House of Representatives, and U.S. Represenative Adam Schiff's time at the podium came off as something designed to be in a "closing-argument" part of such an event, and U.S. Adam Schiff once again pushed out that the ideas that U.S. President Donald J. Trump "injured the nation," "engaged in a scheme," "solicited" a foreign government to affect an election, and did things for "personal benefit" over the benefit of the nation, and, several times, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff said--"...That has been proved!....". In addition, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff talked about what he expected the members of the defense team to talk about, starting tomorrow, when his team would not be able to rebut things then, and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff worked to show that what the members of the defense team will talk before the U.S. Senators would be nonsense, and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff pushed out the idea that, for example, the defense team would tell or may tell the U.S. Senators--"...For god's sake, don't look at what the president did!...." and "....abuse of power doesn't violate The Constitution...." and "...You don't need a crime to be impeachable...." and "...They [the "managers"] hate the president, they hate the president!...." and "...Biden is corrupt!...." and "...Obama did it, Obama did it!..." [withheld aid, such as from Egypt] and "...The call was perfect, the call was perfect!...." and "...Ukraine thinks the call was perfect!...." and "..The president said there was no quid pro quo!...." and "....Under Article II [of The United States Constitution], the president can do whatever he wants!....". The statement by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff about the president's being able to "do whatever he wants" was an overall statement that U.S. Representative Adam Schiff said that the defenders would say, but U.S. Representative Adam Schiff made the statement out of context (to what U.S. President Donald J. Trump had actually said), and so U.S. Representative Adam Schiff once again told a big lie! U.S. Representative Adam Schiff finished the final presentation--which had a note about Russia having a constitution, which is not a bad constitution but only a meaningless constitution--at about 8:52 p.m., and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff ended with--"...Give America a fair trial! Give America a fair trial! She's worth it! Thank you.". And moments later, the day in the U.S. Senate was closed down! And of the broadcast networks, only PBS provided any the prime-time material to television viewers (at least where I was), and when the day was over, PBS ran a little discussion with Judy Woodruff (the anchor), who called the end of the presentation from U.S. Representative Adam Schiff a "powerful appeal" (a response from Judy Woodruff tied to her emotions and not logic), Victoria Nourse, Elizabeth Chryst, Lisa DesJardins, and Yamiche Alcindor (a panel of five women, all of whom were clearly supporters of the Democratic Party, a socialistic/communistic political party), and a guest was U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (a Democrat), who, for one, pushed out the idea that, if no new witnesses or documents are allowed in the U.S. Senate event, it only enforces the idea that U.S. President Donald J. Trump is yet involved in "obstruction," and U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen hinted, if Republican U.S. Senators do not want more witnesses and documents, they can be thought of as saying--"...I don't want to see the truth....". And that was some more of the rotten television that Americans were subjected to in relation to the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald J. Trump.
Early in the morning of Saturday, January 25, 2020, I ran across a lot of news reports on the Internet about a statement made by U.S. Adam Schiff in the U.S. Senate on January 24, 2020, and it was a statement that many Republican U.S. Senators, such as U.S. Senator Susan Collins, quickly denounced as a lie. The statement made by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff on the floor of the U.S. Senate was--"...CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that GOP Senators were warned--'Vote against your president, vote against the president, and your head will be on a pike.'. Now, I don't know if that's true. 'Vote against the president, and your head will be on a pike.' I have to say, when I read that--and again I don't know if that's true--but when I read that, I was struck by the irony, by the irony I hope it's not true. I hope it's not true. But I was struck by the irony of the idea that we're talking about a president who would make himself a monarch, that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was opposed by a monarch--head on a pike.". On Saturday, January 25, 2020, television coverage of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate was scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m., so I tuned in to CBS-TV see what would be said about the statement from U.S. Representative Adam Schiff. CBS News Special Report was the name of the coverage for CBS-TV, and it was hosted by Norah O'Donnell, and Norah O'Donnell had Terry Sullivan (a male), Kim Wehle, Paula Reid, and Major Garrett as associates at anchor desk, and Major Garrett worked to sell the idea that the confidant "summarized the general political atmosphere" related to having more witnesses and documents and voting for or against the president and that the general message being conveyed to the U.S. Senators was "you vote against the president, your head will be on a pike" (but it was not really said to anyone). And Major Garrett said--"...I believe that reporting. It's my reporting. I believe that to be accurate representation for the political atmosphere around it...." Overall, the team headed by Norah O'Donnell worked to down play the material from U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, and the team did not give the impression that a bunch of U.S. Senators had been interviewed and had reported that the quotation about "head on a pike" was actually said. The team for CBS-TV was selling "atmosphere" and not reality, and it was an atmosphere that U.S. Representative Adam Schiff used in an underhanded way. CBS News by originally putting out the story from Major Garrett did bad reporting, and, in fact, the story was not a report of facts, and it seems the story was designed to give an impression of something that could be used by U.S. Adam Schiff to show an atmosphere of corruption tied to U.S. President Donald J. Trump. A good and smart person could see that CBS News and CBS-TV were now clearly a part of the Democratic Party's work to remove U.S. President Donald J. Trump, given CBS News and CBS-TV seemed to have only one source for the statement supposedly made to U.S. Senators and given, actually, the statement was not reality, such as something spoke directly to U.S. Senators (beyond one U.S. Senator), and, also, the "confidant" was not reported to the American viewer, as had not been the named of the original "whistleblower" by the members of the U.S. House of Representatives--it was another one of those "unnamed sources" or "anonymous sources" (which are often cited in "fake news" stories). The statement about head and pike that Major Garrett pushed forth in his story for CBS News should have been clearly presented as an impression from a person (his so-called source) and not a quote that hinted it had actually been said by U.S. President Donald J. Trump to a U.S. Senator or U.S. Senators, and the person being so-called quoted should have been named in public by Major Garrett, if an attempt was not taking place by Major Garrett to give a false impression about what the person had said had come from U.S. President Donald J. Trump and give someone (such as U.S. Representative Adam Schiff) the ability to use the information to give an impression of more corruption tied to U.S. President Donald J. Trump. It seems--based on complaints from U.S. Senators who are Republicans--that the statement said about head and pike by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff in the U.S. Senate was a lie, and so a good and smart person should deduce that Major Garrett purposely pushed out something that could be used wrongly, such as by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, and, on the part of Major Garrett, it was bad reporting and sneaky reporting and even an evil reporting technique.
Special aside: It must be reported here that much of the talk from the "managers" over the three days for "opening arguments" for the "managers" was fluff or useless information or nonsense. A big tactic used by the "managers," as had been used by Democrats during the impeachment-inquiry hearings shown live on television in late 2019, was to waste time with no information and pad or fill time. For example, the "managers" presented a lot of video clips from the hearings of late 2019 that had questions like--If this type of action were to take place, would you find it wrong? Another format for a question was like--If a president were to do such and such, would you find it wrong? Such questions do not present facts or evidence, such as related to why in particular U.S. President Donald J. Trump should be removed from office. Such questions only result in answers of feelings unrelated to a particular person. Such questions can be considered in the category covering suppositions and nebulous things, and such questions do not present evidence and are not evidence.
It was not till a little after 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, January 25, 2020, when the defense team for U.S. President Donald J. Trump--which was headed by Jay Sekulow--began in earnest to have U.S. President Donald J. Trump's side of the trial process presented, such as through television, and they had three days--up to a total of 24 hours--during which to offer their side of the case (which, by the way, would be followed by 16 hours of questioning by the U.S. Senators of the teams). Pat Cipollone began the defense "opening-arguments" format by stating, for one, what was scheduled for the day from the defense team, and then Michael Purpura took to the podium and began the real defense talk. Michael Purpura focused on the famous telephone call of July 25, 2019, and Michael Purpura provided information about things that the "managers" did not tell the American public, and Michael Purpura presented video clips that showed how people who testified before the U.S. House of Representatives in late 2019 (which had been seen in live television broadcasts) had no evidence to show, for one, any strong-arm tactics ("pressure") had been used by U.S. Donald J. Trump on Ukraine to get an investigation done on Joseph Biden and the Biden family. Michael Purpura also brought up the statement made by Gordon Sondland during his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives in 2019 that reported that U.S. President Donald J. Trump wanted no "quid pro quo" from President Zelensky (of Ukraine), which was information that the "managers" had not brought up before the American public and the U.S. Senators on the previous three days. Michael Purpura was finished with his first presentation of the possible three days at about 10:56 a.m., and then Jay Sekulow took to the podium. J ay Sekulow talked about the infamous "Mueller Report" (related to the so-called Mueller investigation, which was controlled by Democrats in the U.S. Congress and shows nothing bad was done by Donald J. Trump in relation to the election of 2016, and he presented evidence that showed people misled or lied to the FISA court system so that they could spy on people related to the Donald J. Trump election campaign tied to the 2016 presidential election, and Jay Sekulow showed that there has been a long-running effort to destroy Donald J. Trump and remove him from the office of the presidency. Also Jay Sekulow noted that a president's not following advice from advisors and ambassadors is not an impeachable offense, though the "managers" had worked to sell that idea that such actions are impeachable. Jay Sekulow noted that the "managers" did not talk about how the Donald J. Trump administration was in 2019 reviewing foreign-aid policy in general, covering more countries than only Ukraine, and that was to not do business as usual in relation to foreign aid, simply give out money without review. To make the idea clear, Jay Sekulow noted that several times, in 2019, U.S. President Donald J. Trump had put a hold on aid to countries, such as Afghanistan, South Korea, several countries in South America, Lebanon, and Pakistan, and the purpose by Jay Sekulow was to show that Ukraine was not the only country that was tied to a "hold" and that it is commonplace for holds to be put on aid to countries by U.S. presidents. Jay Sekulow ended his first presentation at about 11:26 a.m., and then Patrick Philbin showed up at the podium. For one, Patrick Philbin showed one reason why the U.S. President Donald J. Trump administration had not complied with subpoenas from committees of the U.S. House of Representatives, such as during the "Mueller investigation," and it was noted by Patrick Philbin that, for instance, the U.S. House of Representatives had "not authorized" a formal investigation related to impeaching a president, which was required by law, and it was noted that the Donald J. Trump administration always legally presented to a requesting entity (which had sent a subpoena) why materials or people were not released [Note: Authority for a committee's issuing a subpoena related to doing an investigation of the Executive Branch, such as in relation to an impeachment investigation, comes from a "resolution" voted on by the "parent body" (such as the U.S. House of Representatives with respect to a committee tied to the U.S. House of Representatives.], and it was shown that the U.S. President Donald J. Trump administration did not comply with certain subpoenas from the U.S. House of Representatives since the subpoenas were "invalid" (and the idea of validity was talked about in responses to subpoenas). Patrick Philbin noted how, for example, there was no presentation of unfiltered testimony from the now-famous "whistleblower," who, in essence, was the reason for the start up the entire impeachment investigation and trial, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it was noted that the American public has not learned of the motivations of the so-called "whistleblower," such as through questioning and answering [Note: In the United States of America, people, such as a U.S. president or even a U.S. president, gets confront accusers in court-like settings.]. The "managers" did not report who the "whistleblower" was over the previous three days, and so the American public does not have a real idea who the "whistleblower" was and is. Patrick Philbin ended his first presentation of the three days at about 11:53 a.m., and then Pat Cipollone went to the podium, and he said a few things and ended the talk for the defense for the day at noon.
At about noon of Saturday, January 25, 2020, CBS-TV started up a review broadcast of the first day of presentation by the defense team for U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and the Norah O'Donnell once again was the anchor. Right at the start, Nancy Cordes ended up on the screen and worked to sell the idea that the reason aid was withheld or put on hold in relation to Ukraine was not made clear to all underlings of U.S. President Donald J. Trump by U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and she hinted that such action was a reason to impeach, though a U.S. president does not have to give a detailed explanations to all underlings (who can be numerous). Then Weija Jiang got to be on the screen, and others who took part in the review were Paula Reid, Terry O'Sullivan, and Major Garrett. The review once again showed the CBS-TV and CBS News were working to remove Donald J. Trump from the office of the U.S. president. CBS-TV ended coverage at about 12:15 p.m. (and, by the way, NBC-TV and PBS were yet running coverage at about 12:15 p.m., though NBC-TV dropped out at about 12:17 p.m., and then PBS dropped out at 12:26 p.m.).
By the way, at about 12:25 p.m. on Saturday, January 25, 2020, Judy Woodruff of PBS described some video that had been taken in the morning, showing the "managers" wheeling in thousands and thousands of pages of evidence on carts to the U.S. Senate, and it was a crap presentation, since the pages probably had words, but those words--most of the words--do not necessarily show evidence to remove U.S. President Donald J. Trump from office and simply show information gathered (word upon word upon word), so Judy Woodruff was part of the sell to suggest the "managers" had a lot of "evidence" against Donald J. Trump, and that was rotten television done by PBS.
The defense team for U.S. President Donald J. Trump in the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate began a second day of "opening arguments" on Monday, January 27, 2020, and it was a day in which I caught little of the event on television, since I had to make a long-distance drive in Michigan, which lasted about seven hours. I report that I saw some of the early time of the television presentation, but, mostly, I caught what was going on in the U.S. Senate by listening to audio broadcasts by several NPR-associated radio stations (or National Public Radio-associated radio stations), and my listening was done in the afternoon and evening. Of course, I was aware--that if I was to listen to the radio presentation by NPR--my having a history of broadcasting going back about 48 years--I would hear socialists and communists (such as uppity pansy-ass sounding males or boys supporting communism and socialism) giving commentary, such as during the dinner break (which ended up lasting about one hour). During the afternoon, some of the members of the defense team who spoke were Jay Sekulow, Ken Starr, and Jane Raskin, and they started out the day-long presentation that was easy to follow and was logical [Note: A person who took notes could then easily use the notes to tell other persons what had happened, which was unlike what a person taking notes tied to the "managers" had been left with.]. Patrick Philbin took up the topic of why the Donald J. Trump administration did not automatically give up material requested by committees of the U.S. House of Representatives, and he had three main points, one of which noted that subpoenas were invalid (having not been authorized by a procedure involving a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives). A hard job was given to Eric Herschmann, since the job involved showing up the rotten actions of Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president, and during the time that Eric Herschmann presented the thoughts about Barack Hussein Obama, he stumbled in his speech a number of times, and the stumbling--to me (a radio man)--was because of nerves, having to talk about Barack Hussein Obama before U.S. Senators and the American public, given many people in the American public thought Barack Hussein Obama had been a great president and was a great man (though, for example, my website shows through several documents that he was and is a piece of shit). Eric Herschmann brought out the idea of how, in March 2012, Barack Hussein Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that "After my election, I will have more flexibility..." in dealing with arms talks and such, and Barack Hussein Obama later blocked money for a missile defense in Poland, and, in March 2014, Russia annexed the land known as Crimea, which resulted in Barack Hussein Obama in doing nothing, and Barack Hussein Obama blocked aid to Ukraine, and Eric Herschmann said things about Barack Hussein Obama that many people in the United States of America had not heard before, since many persons in the main media had not made much of a story of things when they happened, and Eric Herschmann did show a true case of "quid pro quo," which happened to involved Barack Hussein Obama. During the defense presentation, Alan Dershowitz (who voted for Hillary Clinton to be the U.S. president) did set forth the ideas that "obstruction of Congress" and "abuse of power" as presented are not impeachable offenses. While traveling, David Greene was the main host for commentary segments related to the coverage of the trial by NPR (a national entity), which feeds various radio programs to affiliates around the country. The team for NPR covering the trial did not talk about the Barack Hussein Obama theme, and they did not cover the reasons why the U.S. President Donald J. Trump administration did not have to comply with subpoenas (from committees in the U.S. House of Representatives), and the team actually continued to work to sell the idea that the administration was doing wrong by not complying with subpoenas. During the NPR segments, the crew talked about the new news related to John Bolton, which had been put out some hours previously. The news about John Bolton (a former National Security Advisor to U.S. President Donald J. Trump) came from The New York Times (Haberman, Maggie, and Michael S. Schmidt. "Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Books Says." The New York Times, 27 January 2020, 7:44 a.m. ET.), and the article pushed out the idea that John Bolton's book that was scheduled to be released soon showed U.S. President Donald J. Trump had worked to make aid to Ukraine based on whether or not Ukraine did an investigation of Joseph Biden and Hunter Biden. Good and smart people learned that the article had no quotes from the forthcoming book and the article did not mention from whom the information about Donald J. Trump and John Bolton had come from (the ideas of anonymous source and unnamed source were tied to the article, sort of like the idea of the unnamed "whistleblower" who had started out the whole impeachment process)--the information was pushed out to the American public right at a time when U.S. Senators were talking about whether it was necessary or not to have a vote to have new witnesses testify (but, this time, testify in the U.S. Senate trial of U.S. President Donald J. Trump). [Note: The article came off as a staged event, in which, later, if the book showed nothing really bad had been done, The New York Times could simply report that it reported what was told it, and the article came off as similar with the idea of the unnamed "whistleblower" making outrageous statements of horror with respect to the telephone call of July 25, 2019, and then the transcript of the telephone called of July 25, 2019, showed no horrific event had taken place.] The NPR team pushed out the idea that it seemed some five to ten Republicans of the U.S. Senate might vote to have more witnesses, and one of them was U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (a supporter communistic and socialistic political causes). And the NPR team talked a lot about Rudy Giuliani, Donald J. Trump's private attorney, and how, for one, it seemed wrong that, once the famous "Mueller Report" was released, Rudy Giuliani was still involved in events in Ukraine, such as working to get rid of an ambassador (as part of a plot by the U.S. president to get rid of the ambassador, though no plot was needed, since a U.S. president can remove any ambassador from a post at will and for any reason). The talk from the NPR crew was truly high-level biased reporting, and given the entity avoided talking about things, I can say that that NPR did "fake news." In the evening--during prime time--the defense team for U.S. President Donald J. Trump stopped for the day.
[Note: On Tuesday, January 28, 2020, the Detroit Free Press had no article that talked about what the defense team had done the previous day, which might talk about Barack Hussein Obama and about the three main reasons for why the U.S. President Donald J. Trump administration had not automatically complied with subpoenas, but the newspaper--which is a communistic-socialistic entity--did have an article about the John Bolton book (Cummings, William. "Democrats demand Bolton testify." Detroit Free Press, 28 January 2020, pp. 1A and 8A.). The editorial staff and the news staff of the Detroit Free Press avoided everything from the defense team for U.S. President Donald J. Trump of Monday, July 27, 2020. I guess the editorial staff of the Detroit Free Press was too busy doing other things; for instance, Nancy Kaffer was probably thinking about seeing the last episode of The Good Place.]
The last day for the defense team to present "opening arguments" was Tuesday, January 28, 2020, and I was able to catch the work of the team on television (though I did hear some material by listening to WDET-FM, Detroit, an affiliate of PBS, which is a radio station related to Wayne State University, where I had received a BA related to radio-television-film in the 1970s and where I had been a member of WAYN-AM Radio, which you can learn about by hitting this WAYN-AM link, which was housed for a while in the famous house now known as "The Historic Owen Stanley Fawcett House of 1894" (which no longer exists). Patrick Philbin took up the first real presentation, and he passed along more history about how the government is set up and what powers the U.S. president has and what powers the U.S. Congress has, following up on what was like a history and political class for the U.S. Senators and the American public of the previous day. In essence, the day was a review of points presented. Patrick Philbin was followed by Jay Sekulow and then Patrick Cipollone, who ended the entire presentation at about 2:52 p.m. (saying "...With that, that ends our presentation."), and then the U.S. Senate was closed down for the trial at about 2:55 p.m..
Television networks covered the U.S. Senate happenings of Wednesday, January 29, 2020, and Thursday, January 30, 2020, and I will not report about much of what television viewers saw, but I have one very important incident to report. On both days, U.S. Senators were submitting on paper questions to be answered by either the team of "managers" (from the U.S. House of Representatives) or the team that was defending U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and it was up to Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts to read questions aloud. At one point on Thursday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul submitted a question, and after Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts saw the question on paper, he noted--"The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.". It was later reported by better media entities that Rand Paul did "tweeting" about the question, noting, for one, what Justice John Roberts did say--"My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings." [Saavedra, Ryan. "BREAKING: Chief Justice Roberts Censors Questions From Rand Paul. Paul Releases It." dailywire.com, 30 January 2020.]. U.S. Senator Rand Paul reported what his question submitted to the U.S. Senate originally was--"Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.". It must be remembered that, for one, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff and his associates in the U.S. House of Representatives who worked on the impeachment investigation never formally reported who the so-called "whistleblower" was, and they never offered the "whistleblower" up for public questioning, and the "whistleblower" was not announced formally by many media sources, such as those supporting the Democratic Party. Some news entities did report that Eric Ciaramella was the "whistleblower." By the way, at one time, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff even reported that he did not know the name of the "whistleblower." Since Rand Paul's question did not talk about anyone being the "whistleblower" and since it had been not publicly reported by the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives who the "whistleblower" was, why did Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts censor Rand Paul's question? Did John Roberts get coaching from the Democrats, such as U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, about Eric Ciaramella that was designed to block any talk about Eric Ciaramella? Did Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts--at the time of refusing to read U.S. Senator Rand Paul's question--know who the "whistleblower" was? Once again, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts showed off his rotten mind and it seems his support for the socialists and communists in the federal government of the United States of America, as he had in his decision about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in June 2012, an incident in which he corrupted the meanings of words (such as tax).
"For the record," I report that it was on Friday, January 31, 2020, that television covered the debate related to the impeachment trial between the team of managers and the team of defenders about whether or not witnesses and new evidence (so-called new evidence) should be presented in the U.S. Senate before the U.S. Senators in relation to the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and at about 5:35 p.m., a "roll call vote" was held in the U.S. Senate to determine the answer to either allowing or disallowing witnesses and new evidence, and the vote--51 to 49--resulted in the decision to not allow witnesses and new evidence to be presented in the U.S. Senate, and for the vote, all the Democrats voted to have more evidence and witnesses, and two Republicans (U.S. Senator Susan Collins (of Maine) and U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (of Utah)) joined in with the Democrats, once again showing their real allegiance, standing with the socialists and communists (as they had often done in the past during votes).
It was on Monday, February 3, 2020, when the team of "managers" presented "closing arguments" (during a period of up to two hours) and the defense team for U.S. President Donald J. Trump presented "closing arguments" (during a period of up to two hours), and the biggest amount of bad television came from U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (one of the "managers"), who was the last to speak for the day. U.S. Representative Adam Schiff passed along a lot of nonsense to the American people and the U.S. Senators. U.S. Representative Adam Schiff called U.S. President names regularly, such as "not decent" as a person. It was pushed out that U.S. President Donald J. Trump would make "elections open to the highest bidder." [Note: That idea was based on no proof and could be considered a libelous statement.] It was pushed out that U.S. President Donald J. Trump "betrayed the country" and would do it again. It was pushed out that U.S. President Donald J. Trump looks at the press as "enemies of the people," and that shows a sign that U.S. President Donald J. Trump is bad [Note: I have about 48 years at least tied to the press field, and I agree with U.S. President Donald J. Trump--it is not as if I do not know what the press is doing as a rule.]. It was pushed out that U.S. President Donald J. Trump "sacrificed national security." It was pushed out that U.S. President Donald J. Trump would do bad again. It was pushed out that U.S. President Donald J. Trump does not have the mental state to restrain himself from doing bad again. One of the biggest pieces of crap from U.S. Representative Adam Schiff was, if the Democratic Party ever had a president like U.S. President Donald J. Trump, Adam Schiff would impeach the president [Note: A smart and good person knows Adam Schiff's theme was a lie, well aware of Adam Schiff's character as a perpetual liar and Adam Schiff's support for communism and socialism.]. The final thought presented by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff to the U.S. Senators about U.S. President Donald J. Trump was--"Do impartial justice and convict him!". Ultimately, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff presented nothing more than an emotional plea (such as that designed for women and mushy men), having clichés and lies and suppositions and no facts.
[Note: When U.S. Representative Adam Schiff finished his show, the U.S. Senate was closed down in relation to the impeachment trial, and then the U.S. Senate was opened up in a regular session, and now U.S. Senators had time, running through about midday of Wednesday, February 5, 2020, to present their thoughts from the floor of the U.S. Senate, and each U.S. Senator was scheduled to have up to ten minutes to speak, and then at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 5, 2020, a vote would be held to either put U.S. President Donald J. Trump out of office or not put him out of office.]
On the morning of February 5, 2010, people were thinking that, in the afternoon, the votes related to the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald J. Trump would have the Democrats vote for removal from office and would have the Republicans vote for no removal. During the day, U.S. Senators had time on the floor of the U.S. Senate to talk, such as about to remove or not remove, and one of the U.S. Senators was U.S. Senator Willard Mitt Romney (or, simply, Mitt Romney). When U.S. Senator Mitt Romney spoke, he reported that, on one of the two counts to remove or not remove U.S. President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney would vote to remove, and that removal vote was going to be in relation to abuse of power. The speech was broadcast on television, and when the speech was over, good and smart people understood more how much of a rotten man U.S. Senator Mitt Romney was and is. For example, one aspect of his speech was--"...The president's insistence that they [Joseph Biden and Hunter Biden] be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain, other then a political pursuit. There's no question in my mind that, were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did....". The theme is highly defective. For one, there was and is a legal agreement between the United States of America and Ukraine, in which the both countries are set up to work together on criminal investigations related the two countries. In addition, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney has no powers to predict the future or future events. How can U.S. Senator Mitt Romney report that U.S. President Donald J. Trump would never have anyone else investigated? U.S. Mitt Romney gave the impression that U.S. President Donald J. Trump has something like a long-running feud going on against the Bidens and has been attacking the Bidens for years. Overall, the speech by U.S. Senator Mitt Romney was an emotional speech, which lacked facts and lacked real reasons--such as clearly shown corruption--for removing U.S. President Donald J. Trump from his elected office; some of the time was wasted to push a religious theme about his doing things before God (which a smart and good person could deduce was done by U.S. Senator Mitt Romney to sell the idea to people that they should think of him as a good religious person). In the four o'clock hour of February 5, 2020, the U.S. Senate held two votes related to the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and U.S. President Donald J. Trump was acquitted and not removed from office, and, in relation to the charge of "abuse of power," the vote was 52 votes not to remove and 48 votes to remove, and in relation to the charge of "obstruction of Congress, the vote was 53 votes to not remove and 47 votes to remove, and, basically, the Democrats voted to remove, and the Republicans voted to not remove, and U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (a Republican) did vote to remove in relation to the charge of abuse of power. And then television was done with exposing nonsense tied to the impeachment of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, led by the Democrats of the U.S. Congress and the Democrats in the television industry, and the impeachment process was done (this time).
[Note: A more detailed view of the idiocy and rottenness of U.S. Senator Mitt Romney's voting decisions exists in two documents that are at the website for The Hologlobe Press. One document, which is a long document, is entitled Idiot Thought -- A Collection of Nonsense Comments and Ideas from Democrats (such as Communists and Supporters of Sharia) and Others (such as Republicans Who Are Actually "Rhinos" (Fake Republicans) or Are Not "Conservatives"), which can be reached through this Idiot link. The other document is only a portion of Idiot Thought -- A Collection of Nonsense Comments and Ideas from Democrats (such as Communists and Supporters of Sharia) and Others (such as Republicans Who Are Actually "Rhinos" (Fake Republicans) or Are Not "Conservatives"), and that document is entitled U.S. Senator Willard Mitt Romney -- Yet Another Socialist and Society Killer Whose Defective Thinking Spread Rottenness about the Impeachment Trial of U.S. President Donald J. Trump to Millions, and it can be reached through this Romney2 link.]
Here is a list of newscasters (anchors and reporters) and contributors (such as commentators and so-called experts of something-or-other) who were involved with the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate and were seen on one of the four broadcast networks that had television coverage--ABC-TV, CBS-TV, NBC-TV, and PBS.
ABC-TV -- George Stephanopoulos (the anchor), Melissa Murray, Cecilia Vega, Dan Abrams, Terry Moran, Mary Bruce, Jonathan Karl, Pierre Thomas
CBS-TV -- Norah O'Donnell (the anchor), Lesley Stahl, Nancy Cordes, Margaret Brennan, Major Garrett, Paula Reid, Ben Tracy, Weija Jiana (a female), John Dickerson, Jonathan Turley, Kim Wehle (a female), Jamal Simmons
NBC-TV -- Lester Holt (the anchor), Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Carol Lam, Kasie Hunt, Pete Williams, Hallie Jackson, Geoff Bennett, Berit Berger (a female) [Note: Kristen Welker was sort of covering the event, though she was actually traveling with U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and I do not cover her in the survey below.]
PBS -- Judy Woodruff (an anchor), Amna Nawaz (a female) (an anchor), Lisa DesJardins, Margaret Taylor, Yamiche Alcindor (a female), John Hart, Elizabeth Chryst, Martin Paone, Victoria Nourse
The persons listed may not be all that took part, given someone, such as a reporter, might have gotten screen time and I missed seeing the person or learning of the person.
You should notice that well over half of the persons are female, and, in fact, half of the anchor persons are female. Based on the information that I show, there are 38 persons listed. The number of females is 23, and the number of males is 15.
Special note: No person listed is a "non-binary" it seems, or no one has publicly announced that the self is a "non-binary."
I have to report again, the more women have gotten into the news business and the television news business, the worse the news business has become, since women are more likely to take up supporting socialism than men are, often thinking with emotions and feelings and not logic (as what showed up regularly in the network commentary segments during the impeachment-trial phase in the U.S. Senate).
Incidentally, Mark R. Levin is a well-known radio talk-show host, who hosts a nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Mark Levin Show and who host a television show on the Fox News Channel entitled Life, Liberty & Levin. It was on a show in December 2019, when Mark R. Levin first noted that the next U.S. President who happens to be from the Democratic Party will have to b put through an "impeachment" event (involving everything like that which was done to U.S. President Donald J. Trump) so that the true "impeachment" process related to The United States Constitution might be restored and the corrupt-type "impeachment" process will never be used again by people like those of the Democratic Party involved in the impeachment of U.S. President Donald J. Trump.
Over roughly three months, covering late 2019 and early 2020, television showed the American public an impeachment event, and to a smart and good person--such as a non-communist or a non-socialist--the images presented showed what many politicians and main media people probably would have hoped had not been seen about them. In the case of the U.S. House of Representatives, and good and smart person learned more about how corrupt the Democrats are, which is not surprising since the Democratic Party is the home of people like communists and socialists and progressives and Shariaists, all of whom are bad people because their beliefs for others involve violence and coercion and punishment--they like to hurt other people--and it was shown that the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives would throw away long-standing rules and procedures of the U.S. House of Representatives and in The United States Constitution and make up rules and procedures as things go along [Note: The idea of hurting others as a way of life for such bad people as communists and liberals is talked about in my document entitled LIMITED GOVERNMENT -- For Good Individuals of a Society to Live Well and Free from Enslavism, Politicians Must Be Limited in What They Can Do, and There are No Exceptions to the Rule, which can be reached through this Limited link.]. On Tuesday, January 28, 2020, the defense team for U.S. President Donald J. Trump did the third day to "opening arguments," and Jay Sekulow made this point in the afternoon in relation to the U.S. Senate "...This is the greatest deliberative body on Earth....", and Jay Sekulow's comment has been said about the U.S. Senate for a long time, such as decades, but the actions by most of the U.S. Senators during the time of the impeachment trial for U.S. President Donald J. Trump in the U.S. Senate showed that the U.S. Senate is no great "deliberative body," being made up of idiots and creeps and freaks and perpetual liars in the form of Democrats and at least one Republican (particularly U.S. Senator Willard Mitt Romney, whose rottenness you can learn about by reading my document entitled U.S. Senator Willard Mitt Romney -- Yet Another Socialist and Society Killer Whose Defective Thinking Spread Rottenness about the Impeachment Trial of U.S. President Donald J. Trump to Millions, and it can be reached through this Romney2 link). The presentations by television networks, such as through newscats, that covered the hearings and sessions of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate showed that almost all the news people and commentators worked to support the actions of the Democrats of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, willing to lie and deceive and even avoid reporting what might go against the Democrats.
The good and smart person did have one thing to be thankful for at the time of the impeachment event for U.S. President Donald J. Trump--The U.S. Senate was not at the time of the impeachment trial under the control of Democrats [Note: To learn why the Democrats took up working to impeach U.S. President Donald J. Trump, see my document entitled The Impeachment of U.S. President Donald J. Trump by the Democrats in the United States of America -- Why?, which can be reached through this Impeachment link.]. If the U.S. Senate were controlled by Democrats at the time of the impeachment trial, then it is very likely that U.S. President Donald J. Trump would have been removed from office for fake reasons, and another person--the current U.S. vice president--would become the U.S. president, though probably for only a short while, and if the U.S. vice president would become the new U.S,. president, the Democrats would probably have started up another scam to remove the new president from office as quickly as possible. Of course, if the U.S. Senate were controlled by the Democrats, a good and smart person would have probably learned less about the rottenness in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, since more of the rottenness could be covered up, such as by not allowing as much truth to come out, as had happened during the real impeachment trial, and more misinformation and the like would probably be presented over truth, making a more one-sided event that would be in favor of the Democrats.
By about 5:00 p.m. (Detroit time) on February 5, 2020, a good and smart person should have come away with one giant conclusion--The Democrats are society killers, and, in fact, a Democrat has the nature of a killer, and if a Democrat in government (at least) is not blocked, such as by laws and opposing politicians in government, the Democrat would harm and destroy and even kill the good and smart person, such as through guns (as happens in countries with communism and socialism and progressivism and liberalism and Sharia as the way of life for the "people" (the "citizens" or the ruled-over), and the conclusion is a lesson that must be taught to children, who must learn to hate the Democrat.
Note: On the Internet, this document is known as: www.hologlobepress.com/impeach2.htm.
Note: This document was first posted on the Internet on February 10, 2020.
To reach the website for The Hologlobe Press,
use this link: The Hologlobe Press.
To see The Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe Press,
use this link: Site-Summary.
To see the catalog for T.H.A.T. documents,
use this link: T.H.A.T..
To see T.H.A.T. #186,
use this link: T.H.A.T. #186.
To see T.H.A.T. #187,
use this link: T.H.A.T. #187.
To see T.H.A.T. #188,
use this link: T.H.A.T. #188.
To see T.H.A.T. #189,
use this link: T.H.A.T. #189.
To see T.H.A.T. #190,
use this link: T.H.A.T. #190.
Note: You are urged to see the document entitled The Letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from U.S. President Donald J. Trump (December 17, 2019), which can be reached through this Trump Letter link.
Note: You are urged to see my document entitled Democrats -- And You Think They Would Not Kill You [A commentary about "Medicare For All"], which can be reached through this Think link.
Note: You are urged to see my document entitled The "Save Americans From Enslavism" Campaign--Defining Enslavism (Communism, Sharia, Socialism, et cetera) For All Time in the Minds of Americans, which can be reached through this SAFE link.