[Hoot Gibson]

Anybody have an issue with Graham and Cruz meeting with defense lawyers?

Doesn’t hardly seem right for a juror to meet with the defense.

Does it seem right to you that the judge presiding over the trial has already voted to convict Trump once, has voted in favor of the constitutionality of the second trial, and will vote as a juror as well? If you are okay with all of that, then maybe you should hold back on your condemnation of Cruz and Graham.

I haven’t seen “the judge” do anything yet.  

There is an inevitability that these jurors will vote.

So, your answer is no, you have no issue with a partisan Democrat Senator presiding over the trial, despite his having an very anti-Trump record. Do you have any issue with many, if not most Democrats advocating a conviction before the trial began? Did you have an issue with the House impeaching President Trump before any investigation was conducted? Don't bother answering these rhetorical questions. The truth is you have no concern for impartiality or for whether President Trump will get a fair trial. You only object to the appearance of bias when that bias is in favor of a president who was impeached without due process and is being tried in an unconstitutional proceeding by a Senate who has no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against a private citizen.

Do you know why the Watergate panel investigating Richard Nixon fired Hillary Clinton? She argued that Nixon should not be allowed representation by an attorney. Some Democrats have a long history of conducting partisan witch hunts. Unfortunately, while Hillary was in a small minority during the Watergate scandal, people of her ilk now represent the majority of Democrats in Congress.