Second Impeachment Senate Trial To Begin This Week | February 8, 2021
Here's your conservative, not bitter host, Todd Huff.
lining the realities are needs to tell the impeachment team that this impeachment dream is nothing but a pipe dream. As we kick off impeachment week. Guess we had to get past the Super Bowl before we did that. Welcome to the program. I'm your host, Todd Huff email, Todd, The Todd Huff show.com facebook.com slash The Todd Huff Show is where we're streaming as well. Let's talk a little bit this morning about impeachment. This impeachment proceeding begins this week actually starting tomorrow. In the Senate, we know that President Trump former President Trump has been impeached in the House of Representatives for a second time. They did that in the waning moments of well, the final couple of days of his presidency. And now we're off to the Senate where the hearing will begin and I want to share with you their strategy. Politico's talking about a big shift in the strategy in the impeachment proceeding. We'll talk about that this morning. We'll talk about what Alan Dershowitz is saying about impeachment as well. But again, this is it's kind of a mockery, isn't it? there's a there's a couple of big issues here, number one, number one, the first is the idea of impeachment constitutionally is to give members of Congress the authority to deal with a president who is currently in office and to be able to stop that President or to remove that President from office. While the voters don't have a, an opportunity to speak, and opportunity to make their voices known on that particular president after they've learned of the information that impeachment is supposed to provide and deliver to the American people. impeachment, again, is supposed to be the mechanism by which someone can be removed from office. impeachment itself is described as somewhat synonymous or closely synonymous with the act of indicting someone. And, of course, the Senate trial, if he is the President is found guilty. Is is the equivalent of the actual Well, you could say criminal proceeding or the the trial part of our criminal justice system. And of course, the consequences for those who are found guilty would be the removal from office. But this the situation doesn't involve a president who is sitting in office, right. This is not include. The circumstances here do not include a president who is currently empowered. This is someone who is no longer in office as of what is it? Almost three weeks now, almost three weeks now, President Trump has been out of office, but yet they act as though he's still in office, and they have to do something to stop. stop us from having him as our leader. That's not the case. But nonetheless, this is where they want to take us. The other issue is kind of an extension of that, which is can say for example, if Republicans gained control of the Senate and the House in 2022, can they vote to impeach President Obama? Or President Clinton? Or President Carter? Heck, for that matter? Can we vote to impeach a president who's no longer living? Where does this nonsense end? And where does it take us? that's those are the those are the big I think, constitutional or or just strategic? You can say issues or even even the things that could set precedent. Where does this go? The other is what Politico here is talking about this is more on the strategic side. headline in this article, Democrats big shift and Trump's second impeachment trial, excuse me impeachment I inserted the word trial there. Senate Democrats aren't pressing hard to include witnesses in the upcoming trial. So we really didn't have any. I don't think we had any witnesses in the in the house impeachment portion. Remember this was this was just jammed through. This was just pushed through quickly. For whatever reason. Rand Paul's out there saying there is zero chance that President Trump is actually going to be impeached. In fact, Rand Paul called for a vote a couple of weeks ago, maybe it was last week or the week before, where he said he wanted to get senators on the record as saying whether or not this whole process was even constitutional to begin with, and 4545 Republicans said it was not constitutional. Now, it's a little hard to understand why someone who voted and said that this act, this particular impeachment trial was a constitutional Sham, why they would vote in, I guess, agreement with the idea that President Trump needs to be impeached, or found, I guess, found guilty in the Senate in this impeachment proceeding. Why they would do that if they believe that this is constitutionally, an invalid process is an unconstitutional process. 45 of those individuals, Republican senators, are on the record as saying that this process to begin with is unconstitutional. So it's a little hard to find the consistency there. Or someone would say, yes, this is unconstitutional, but yet, I'm going to go ahead and vote to find the president guilty. And basically say this, this guy can never run for office again, they seem to be awfully afraid of that, by the way, yet they want to tell us on social media and other places that they this guy can never win another election ever. I wouldn't I wouldn't count on that if I was the left. So let's look at this article really quickly here. Again, this is in Politico Dimmick democrats made a push for witnesses central to President Donald Trump's first impeachment trial, but not this time. Senate Democrats are making it clear they're taking a different approach than they did for Trump's infamous Ukraine call. That of course, was the first of the insane impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Now the article continues. They say their experiences, their experience as witnesses to the January 6 insurrection is enough. They say their experience as witnesses. So in other words, the people sitting in the senate don't need witnesses because they were effectively there. Richard Blumenthal senator from the state of Connecticut says this, this is a this is based on a public crime. his intent was unhidden. And so I think there's a danger as there always is for a trial lawyer and prosecutor to over try and add more witnesses that prove the obvious. This is just too much for me. So we were there. Right? They say we were there. We don't need any witnesses. We just are going to basically I guess why don't we just have a roll call vote here. Why don't we just vote off the cuff with not even one shred of of testimony or anything? What do you mean, we? He says? He says that it's always tempting or always a danger, I should say for a trial lawyer or prosecutor to over try to add more witnesses that prove the obvious more witnesses than zero. Of course, any witness would be more witnesses than zero. So we were all there. They say we saw what happened. This is obvious. Were you at the Trump speech? Did you listen IV? I mean, tell us tell us the words. What words did he use to incite this? This violence? Why does the FBI say that this was planned in advance having something planned in advance be something that's incited by the words of a president hours before the Capitol was was raided? How can that be the case? How do you what do you mean more witnesses? You haven't even made your case, let alone talking about any witnesses and of course, zero witnesses anything can be more than zero witnesses. That's Richard Blumenthal. Senator Brian sheets democrat Hawaii. Compare the situation this way. Imagine this is what he says Imagine if the Ukraine call were streamed on the internet. And given how dugin most members of both parties are heated observed, it's not clear to me that there's any evidence that will change anyone's mind. So in other words, the whole Ukraine call could have been streamed on the internet. And if you thought that Trump if you hate Trump, basically you would have said he needs to be impeached. If you were a Trump supporter, you would have said there's nothing here. And he said, that wouldn't have changed. That wouldn't have changed anything. I'm not really sure what his point is, other than to say, what I think is the obvious here, which is that this is the same thing. If you're a Democrat in the Senate, you have already told us that you're going to vote to impeach President Trump. If you're a Republican in the Senate, with five exceptions, you've already told us that this is a sham unconstitutional process. And they need 67 votes. So even if all 50 democrats plus the five Republicans who are currently on record as saying this is not an unconstitutional process, that brings them to 55. I'm not saying those five will vote that direction they very well, may I don't, I don't hold much confidence in the likes of Mitt Romney. And who else is in that group? Maybe maybe Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, I don't hold any any confidence in these folks, as far as as far as being principled or doing the right thing is concerned or following the constitution as it pertains to this because they're, you know, they're not they're not Trump, folks. And that's enough, I guess, to keep your mind open to the possibility that this is suddenly somehow a constitutional process. So democrats are actually going to be having a senate trial without any witnesses. Think about that. That is the truck. I equate this to. I just equate this to when I was a jury, juror on a jury. And the idea, the idea that they would not present or not have any witnesses in the trial, I was a part of I wouldn't even have known what where to begin with this. But they say oh, but we were there, Todd, we were there. We witnessed it. Well, again, were you at the Trump speech. What did they say? in particular? Why don't you tell the American people why don't you play the soundbite that inside of the riot? Why don't you tell us what exactly your claims are? See, I think instead of simply saying that, they don't need to hear anything, because they were there. And I think there was nothing there. And so there's no witnesses to call. Maybe they can call each other. Could they do that? Would that violate some? Some senate rule? I don't know. Why not. I mean, Patrick Leahy is going to somehow preside over this this trial, a very biased judge, if you will, because he voted to impeach Trump the first time now he's sitting as the presiding officer in these impeachment hearings. This is a total Sham, a total waste of time. There's nothing beneficial that can come from this. If President Trump ever seeks to be president, again, which I'm not predicting, he will, but if he ever does, he has to win the support of the American people. He's not currently in office, he has to garner he has to find a way to reconnect and get those votes. Yet again, so the American individual, the American voter can speak again prior to his ever stepping foot into the white house again, should that be the case? So it's not as though they are intervening when the voter doesn't have a voice on the issue. Again, he's not in office. They're calling no witnesses. They push this thing through they ramrod of this thing through back in you know, back couple of what month or so we go through the House of Representatives. And now they're not calling any witnesses for the Senate trial. This is a sham trial. This is this is just reminds me of the old Reba McEntire song, the nights when the lights went out in Georgia. That's the way that this is being portrayed and handled. So kicks off tomorrow. Be ready if you're going to watch any of this to I guess, be subjected to a lot of illogical just silliness here for the next few days. next few weeks, however long this takes, we will see. Timeout is in order. You're listening here to the mF conservative, not bitter talk. I am your host, Todd Huff back here in just a minute.
Welcome back. By the way, this program document a document and by scientists 98% of scientists, folks, 98% of scientists agree that listening to this program can, in fact, cause you to lean to the right. So be careful if you're operating heavy machinery driving in to work today be very, very careful because studies have proven this. And this, in fact, is one percentage point higher of scientists agree with this, then scientists agree that man is contributing to climate change. So be careful out there may be some more things on climate change here a little bit later in the program. But I want to talk here, I want to share a little bit from an interview. Alan Dershowitz was on the program called the cat's Roundtable, which is on a radio program that comes out in New York, it was over the weekend. And he was asked Alan Dershowitz was asked what was going on with the impeachment trial. In fact, john roberts is not going to be a part of this, which we alluded to last last segment. And the host asks, What the heck is going on here with this trial, and this is how Dershowitz responds
to show trial. And the reason I'm not in it as a lawyer I was in the last one is because I'm neither an actor, nor a politician, and it's political theater. For example, Jamie Raskin, my former student who's the head manager of the house, you know, issued this invitation to the president to come and testify. That was just, you know, showing off so that he can say, Aha, see, the President didn't accept my invitation. Therefore, he has something to hide. It's just wrong. The Senate has no authority under the Constitution. To try a former public official, or somebody who wasn't even a public official, you can only remove somebody who was then sitting in office, James Madison said that in the Federalist Papers, and also they're trying to remove him based on a constitutionally protected speech. Congress is not above the law, it can't violate the constitution. It can't violate the First Amendment by putting somebody on trial, or making a speech that was protected by the First Amendment. So I hope there'll be an acquittal and it will send a message that you don't abuse the impeachment power for partisan political purposes.
So I'm not sure and this is gonna Alan Dershowitz they're on Dershowitz, constitutional lawyer. Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Cornell, Alan Dershowitz, of course, was also on President Trump's impeachment defense team, number one. But he points out what I think is fairly obvious. And I like the way he said this. The reason he's not involved is because he's not a politician, and nor an actor. This is political theater. This is why I refer to the radical left many times as drama kratts, this is what they do. This is what they try to use to their political, political advantage when they see an opportunity to do so. This is not real, it is real, but it's not true. It's not a true process. This is a sham. This is not based in the Constitution. This is not designed to remove someone who is currently in office, this is designed, this is designed this this is payback politics. This is trying to make political hay out of something that they believe will help them I don't know how this this does. I don't know if they're so blinded by their hatred for Trump, if they want to, if Trump runs again, because again, the chances of him being convicted in the senate are very, very small. I would never say zero. Because I know some of the folks that are involved here, I know that they're not necessarily the most convicted people. And if the political winds shift in a certain direction strongly enough, who knows what they will what they will do, but the chances are as close to zero as one could, as one could expect, especially if you're not going to call witnesses. Right? I mean, these jokers they know this everybody First of all, everybody in DC virtually is a lawyer. My opinion one of the problems that we have. There are way too many lawyers in both parties, by the way. I have thought about that. Well, that's another subject altogether. But I don't get into that. I so there's too many lawyers, they all know this. They all know we had was Blumenthal here last segment, I read a sound or a clip from a quote from him, where he was saying that impeachment sometimes, whether you're, you know, an impeachment trial or whether a criminal trial sometimes you can call too many Witnesses to make the point that you've already made. Except for you haven't made it. And you haven't called a single witness. Surely no one would agree that one is to me, surely everyone would agree that one is not too many witnesses. Right? Can we all agree with that one witnesses, not too many. Mr. Blumenthal Democrats in the Senate. Dershowitz is right. This is a political sham. This is a performance. This is political theater. This is not designed to do what it was intended to do. Dershowitz also adds at the end of this, which I I don't see it this way. But he says he hopes that this is soundly defeated, I do as well. He hopes the president is acquitted. And he thinks it will send the message or hopes it will send the message that impeachment is not supposed to be a partisan tool used by Congress in a partisan way. I think that the days of wishing for that are, are long gone. I think if we want now, I think it's we should we should demand that this not be used this particular way. But I think the folks that we have in Washington, DC have told us they've told us who they are many, many times. Either folks don't listen, or they don't care. They don't care that there's not enough character in the pinky finger if some of these folks don't even care one iota about doing the right thing. And so and so I have no hopes that this will be the last time that this is done. And by the way, that includes if and when republicans regain political power, they should not arbitrarily use the powers of impeachment to do the same thing. I know that there's an temptation. I know some of you may be yelling at me right now. But Todd turnabouts, turnabout is fair play. We edifying people. We've got to find people that are going to adhere to the Constitution of the United States, we've got to make sure that we're not engaging in this.
This is this is not healthy for the Republic, or if you prefer our democracy, and healthy for our democracy, no matter who does it. And I know the tendency, I know, I understand where you're coming from when you say if they do it, we can do it. I don't I think that we should follow the law. And I think we should demand that they follow the laws. Well, now the problem is we don't have the power to stop them. Nobody seems interested in this except for conservative commentators. But the idea, the idea that these jokers are gonna suddenly wake up after losing this particular trial, which is seems to be the inevitable conclusion we're headed towards here. They being the Democrats, it's not as though they're gonna wake up and say, Wow, we learned our lesson. I think that that is talking about naive That to me is off the charts naive, that is not what's going to happen here. In fact, if it helps them achieve political objectives along the way, this will only encourage them to do this. Again, I think you could make the case that they have been encouraged by this. They've already done it once before. Now here they are doing it. Yet again. They are drama Kratz. This is a performance, this is not something that is a genuine process. This is a sham. This is a performance. This is a show. It is anything but real. There's not even witnesses. Think about that. Think about having a trial. For those of you especially who are not attorneys. You're not even an attorney. And you would know that if you're serious about convicting someone, you have to have witnesses. Right, you know that, but yet they have zero. And they try to tell you that that is the wise thing to do, because they don't want to have too many acting is the one witness is too many for the system to bear. It is silly, is laughable. It is not serious. Neither are there policies, by the way, which we'll have to deal with, as well here for the next couple of years and buckle up for that there's a whole bunch of those that I can get to here today. time permitting, but I gotta take a break is in order to come back and shift gears here a little bit but impeachment does start. This week. The actual senate trial begins tomorrow, we'll see how long this thing lasts, especially since there are no witnesses that are going to be called. And so there you go, quick timeout is an order you're listening to conservative, not bitter talk. I am your host, Todd Huff back here in just a minute.
Welcome back my friends by the way. By the way This program is brought to you in part by our friends at apprentice University in fact they bring to you. They help bring to you the college fix interview series, which we're scheduled to have another interview here in the not too distant future. Matt Lam assistant editor of the college fix tells us what's going on. on campuses, college campuses all around this country. We have him on once a month. That's brought to you by our friends. At apprentice University, you can find out more about apprentice University Look, if you are a parent who has a young person, a student graduating high school soon to be graduating high school looking at college options or what he or she is looking to do. Maybe even a grandparent Of course, you may be a student listening to this program as well, great decision no matter which group you fall into. But if you're a student, if you're a parent of a student, if you are a grandparent of a student, it's worth taking a moment to take a look at apprentice University, how it's different their apprenticeship program, their educational component, and how they how they can help students really have learned things that they may never learn in a college classroom for more information visit apprentice dot University apprentice dot University today so let's let's shift gears here a bit. Let's shift gears here a bit. We've been talking about impeachment this morning. Here's something else I've I've referred to this and this was today This was on Saturday, I saw this PJ PJ media. Here comes here come the quote, climate lockdowns, this is something I remember talking about referencing referring to early on, early on in this this COVID crisis, because to me, when we allowed our government to take these incredibly powerful steps against the private individual, right, and I said early on, I said early on, if there is a when we look at government taking action, like they did, it has to be very specific, very, very well defined very, very clearly articulated as to why right? Doing something for a short period of time, taking extreme actions, locking, whatever locking things down, all that sort of stuff. It's much different to say that during, you know, a couple of weeks or a couple of days versus virtually a year now, as some people have been dealing with this. We've all dealt with it in some capacity, but virtually a year now has passed. Almost Not quite. Since we've been dealing with with COVID lockdowns and all that all the executive action mayors and governors taking these extreme actions. telling you where you what you can do, how you can live your life, which groups of people you can be around which groups of people you cannot be around what purposes, you can be around other people for like for example, you can be around other people to buy a bag of potato chips at the grocery store, but you cannot be around people in some places if you're going to sing worship to your Creator God. So let's look at this because this is something that's always been there for me and I'm glad to see Rick Moran of PJ media write about this. He says he says this. PJ media is Jeff Reynolds reported on the proposed climate emergency legislation that would declare climate change a national emergency if passed, it would give billion Biden sweeping powers and unlock billions in spending. Since there is no quote climate emergency at the moment the radical greens have to create one and the more dire and frightening they can make it the more powerful they will become. So when I said when you thought that yes, COVID is something that concern you know, we should pay attention to be smart about it you yet there's other things to consider, namely, that our government and the way that it responds to these crises and security
That is something we should pay close attention to. When I said and as you've probably said and thought as well, that the behavior, the rationale, the reasoning, the logic that was used in the COVID, the COVID crisis, the COVID lockdowns, the COVID pandemonium in some cases, we got Fauci out there still, I guess, contemplating whether or not we need to wear two masks. If we were to mask Do I hear three? Do I hear four? Where do we stop this on and on this stuff goes and people are willing and ready to just, I just just eat this stuff up, just accept it and take it. Now we've got people wondering, what about a climate? And, again, what about a climate lockdown? What's the stop the government? This is a rhetorical question. But what is to stop the government at some point from saying, look, this is an emergency emergency situation. We I mean, I shared with you information last week from a study that said by 2100, even if every government around the world did everything that it promised it was doing even back to the days of President Obama's Paris, accord promises and so forth. If we all did those things, 100%, everything went exactly the plan. The estimates were that temperatures would be point 05 degrees less by the year 2100. than have we not done anything at all. 0.05 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit, is all that would be affected according to their own projections and prognostications by the year 2100. That's what 79 years away 79 years from now, we will have affected if those studies are correct. The temperature by 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit. So what if someone says, Look, that's not enough, folks, we're gonna kill ourselves and our planet. No one's gonna have any jobs. No one's gonna have any family, no one's gonna have any, you know, church to go to whatever they want to say, to instill fear. If we don't do this today, the sea levels are gonna start rising at some astronomical number every day, week, month, Florida's gonna be underwater, all this sort of stuff, right? This is what they do. This is how they're going to go about doing this. This is this is how they have gone about doing this. But what if someone ups the ante, if you will? And they say, look, we're past the point of this just being something that we can legislatively control.
What if someone then says is time President of the United States, whoever, who knows some bizarre one, if someone steps in and says we've declared a climate emergency, this is just like COVID. Remember, folks, we had to wait to hunker down, who just got to hunker down, we're all in this together. can't stand this kind of just the way that the thought process is here. A bunch of it sounds like for those of you that used to be well, when Chuck pagano was coached, and you had to listen to prime, the pump and all the chopping wood, we're getting out to chop wood prime the pump, get ready here for the team that, you know, that we got to get, get ready to prime that pump for. We're all in this together. hunker down, stop the spread mask up. Okay, I don't even know what I just heard there. That's kind of, but the same tactics can be used, right? The same tactic can be used to say, Look, man, you're killing this planet. If you keep driving, if you keep driving your SUV to work, if you keep if you keep shipping in food to your local community, or whatever, whatever they want to say, on these big trucks, you're going to be you're killing the planet, man. Gotta lock it down. The only way we're gonna be here next week is if we lock this, maybe Dan can't be out in your car. And we're COVID COVID we flatten that curve, but COVID think what we can do think think of the curve we can flatten with climate change if we force everyone. In fact, there's been reports I remember reading stories, I don't have it in front of me. You have to trust my impeccable memory with this. But I remember reading stories about climate change and how some of the you know, the things that we track out of those carbon emissions or whatever. There were noticeable differences when the world was under lockdown. And I remember thinking at the time, boy, oh boy, someone is rubbing their hands together now thinking it's a great opportunity to get the pass up. So will COVID lockdowns become Coronavirus, climate change lockdowns? See, this is why people like me and you, people who care about the role of government, people who care about the rule of law, the Constitution, the Republic, well, this is why we had concerns not just about the virus at the beginning, but also about what we allowed ourselves to be told to do pertaining to the virus. So, our climate lockdowns coming I don't know I don't put it past them. That's why we got to pay close close attention to what's being said and done in Washington, DC and at all levels of government around the country. But a timeout is an order when we get back at what actually play a soundbite talking about climate change something I had last week from john kerry. And that's right john kerry out there explaining to you and to me why he needs a private jet. And the rest of us dopes should probably be riding around on bicycles or walking on foot. So we'll talk about that. When we get back. Sit tight. You're listening to conservative, not bitter talk. I'm your host, Todd Huff back here in just a minute.
Welcome back. Running out of time, I want to play this soundbite really, really quickly. By the way, too, I want to mention one of our newest advertisers and welcome to the program, Hayes and sons really enjoyed getting to know Jacob, and learning a little bit more about Hayes and sons. They are a trusted water damage restoration company here in the region. And if you have damage to your home water damage, consider reaching out to our friends at Hayes and sons you can visit the website Hayes and sons.com. Here's a soundbite from john kerry when he's in Iceland being asked about climate change, particularly why he has to jet around the world on a private jet lecturing the rest of us basically how we have to walk everywhere we go and ride bicycles here is that
clip on that issue pollution, I understand that you came here with a private jet. Is that an environmental way to travel? If you offset your carbon, it's the only choice for somebody like me, who is traveling the world to win this battle. Boy, I negotiated the Paris accords. For the United States. I've been involved in this fight for years, I can go to your hero happened on the soundbite there. Oh, man dropped the sound by basically what he tells us is, he's not going to be lectured to. He's not going to be lectured to because he is saving the planet. And what option does he has? I don't know gretta goes around the world on these basic like floatation devices? Why don't you Why don't you invest in one of those? But couldn't the same be said for anybody who uses a private jet? Couldn't the same very thing be said about? Forget about the Jets for a moment. Forget about that level of travel. What about just living your life? I mean, I gotta drive to the office I need I need this john, I got snow on my drive, I need four wheel drive. This goes on and on. Got out of time here. Come back and wrap up. You're listening to conservative, not bitter talk. I'm your host, Todd Huff back in a minute.
Back to this climate change thing really, really quickly. And I'm up against the clock. But I mean, all of us, all of us that are being told what to do by the government how to live our lives, what to eat, what to wear, what drive what to think. We all have reasons and rationale. to not do you know, like like john kerry does, but this is how the left thinks the left always thinks that they're doing some grander thing than you are there. They've got some bigger project. He's fighting climate change to win this battle. And what are you and i doing just taking care of our families and providing providing for folks? So beneath john kerry anyway, folks, I've got to go. Thanks for listening. SDG see tomorrow. Take care.