Jump to content

The Jury Collaborates with the Accused - Mitch McConnell


Recommended Posts

Mitch McConnell today stated that any impeachment proceedings in the Senate  that "Everything I do in this, I'm coordinating with Whithouse counsel."

Yes, the man responsible for ensuring a fair and impartial impeachment trial (in which he is a juror) has openly stated that he will run the impeachment exactly how Trump wants it done.

He will allow what (if any) witness testify that Trump wants. He will only allow evidence in that Trump wants.

Quote

“Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House counsel,” McConnell said. “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this — to the extent that we can. We do not have the kind of ball control on this — a typical issue, for example, comes over from the House. If I don’t like it, we don’t take it up. We have no choice but to take it up. But we’ll be working through this process, hopefully in a short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people representing the president in the well of the Senate.”

He later added, “I’m going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers.”

“We know how it’s going to end,” McConnell said. “There’s no chance the president is going to be removed from office.”

On the other hand, this may be the long game by Pelosi I've discussed before. Send the articles to the senate, then watch the GOP Senators set themselves on fire protecting an overwhelmingly guilty president.

 

She knows she can't get Trumped removed by the GOP Senate. But she CAN let them take themselves down with him in 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It seems the Majority Leader is not happy about the Articles not being sent right over.   https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475278-mcconnell-accuses-democrats-of-being-too-afraid-to-send-articl

People have been saying that the US has become a second-rate banana republic. That is hardly a fair judgement. By any fair standard, it has become a first-rate banana republic.

I don't think Pelosi wanted an impeachment. It was the open admission by the POTUS and his COS of breaking a law with a comment of "Get used to it." This forced the issue, took the choice out of her h

Posted Images

The Republicans have primed the pump for this show trial by non-stop complaining about process for ten weeks. At this point, rigging the trial appears To be a bipartisan act to the FOX newsy audience.

Democrats should just understand that Trump won’t get impeached, but that there will be opportunity to score political points nonetheless.

Before the House votes, however, the courts will have ruled on whether or not Trumps’ aides can be compelled to respond to Congressional subpoenas.

Might throw an interesting twist into the proceedings, and might have implications for document requests as well. Documents make for great reporting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it appears that Mitch McConnell agrees with what Democrats have been saying all along that this is a political process in which the established principles of jurisprudence don't apply. It's how the admissibility of hearsay and speculation was rationalized. Indeed it's how the entire asymmetrical process we have witnessed to date has been rationalized.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems unethical, if not illegal.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I think McConnell is refreshingly honest. He clearly could not give even the most minuscule shit about the rule of law, separation of powers, the Constitution, or anything else that impedes Republicans. He owns it, he is out load and proud.

 

He has seen how well this "corruption and crime in the open" has worked out for Trump.   It will assure his Kentucky seat stays with him and Trump gets re-elected.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

People have been saying that the US has become a second-rate banana republic. That is hardly a fair judgement. By any fair standard, it has become a first-rate banana republic.

 

But, racing toward second-rate or lower status, as fast as we can.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

<SNIP>

She knows she can't get Trumped removed by the GOP Senate. But she CAN let them take themselves down with him in 2020.

McConnell is an idiot.  If this doesn't BTBD - I don't know what will.   

I've got a big case of anti-incumbency.   IMHO - the voters cleaning house in 2020 would be a very good thing.  If Mme Pelosi actually engineered this, then kudos to her for her Machiavellian maneuvering.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Unfortunately it appears that Mitch McConnell agrees with what Democrats have been saying all along that this is a political process in which the established principles of jurisprudence don't apply. It's how the admissibility of hearsay and speculation was rationalized. Indeed it's how the entire asymmetrical process we have witnessed to date has been rationalized.

Um, no.  The House followed the rules (which were created by Republicans).  Republicans were allowed to call anyone they wanted.  Anyone who could have cleared Trump was bullied into defying subpoenas.  

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is hilarious. For weeks you bozos have been claiming,  the one sided hearings were completely fine because the constitution gives the house free reign to do whatever they want.  

News flash - the same constitution gives complete control to the senate, to run the impeachment trial.  
Mitch is using the same partisan game plan that Pelosi used when she set up the impeachment hearings. 

Suck  it up snowflakes 
  

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

This is hilarious. For weeks you bozos have been claiming,  the one sided hearings were completely fine because the constitution gives the house free reign to do whatever they want.  

News flash - the same constitution gives complete control to the senate, to run the impeachment trial.  
Mitch is using the same partisan game plan that Pelosi used when she set up the impeachment hearings. 

Suck  it up snowflakes 
  

Facts say otherwise

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how one the of the talking points has been that impeaching Trump will make a horrible tool just another thing that happens all the time.

Republicans are essentially saying that they now feel free to impeach anybody at any old time. Just like they nailed Clinton for his sexual impropriety, Democrats are gonna get impeached.
 

The GOP loves its escalation: “we’ll see your ending filibusters which prevent anything from getting done and block a SCOTUS, violate blue slip traditions and make sure the Senate gets nothing done.”

They act all pious and blame the next impeachment on Democrats. No matter that this is over Foreign policy self-dealing, Congressional power of the purse, electoral malfeasance and obstruction of justice, the Democrat will be subject to articles on whatever the GOP can make up courtesy of their Russian sponsors.

Buckle up, boys. It’s gonna stay bumpy. The GOP is hurt and angry; they gotta whine and act out their desire for revenge. They have no interest in the big problems facing the nation. If they can continue to distract their racist base to the polls they can sweep along the rest with abortion, guns and fear of the enemy: Democrats & liberals.

It beats leadership & hard work.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Facts say otherwise

What facts am I missing?  Pretty simple the Constitution spells out who runs the impeachment hearing and  who runs the trial.  

In case you missed it the only bipartisan part of this, so far was the vote NOT to open impeachment hearings 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

What facts am I missing?  Pretty simple the Constitution spells out who runs the impeachment hearing and  who runs the trial.  

In case you missed it the only bipartisan part of this, so far was the vote NOT to open impeachment hearings 

The Senate runs the trial.  Moscow Mitch just handed it over to the President.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy to remind everyone that the SCOTUS rules on Trump's taxes today. If they stop the delivery of Trump's taxes to Congress, it is over for the Republican Party. If SCOTUS allows the delivery of Trump's taxes to Congress, it is over for Trump. A beautiful day, either way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I like how one the of the talking points has been that impeaching Trump will make a horrible tool just another thing that happens all the time.

Republicans are essentially saying that they now feel free to impeach anybody at any old time. Just like they nailed Clinton for his sexual impropriety, Democrats are gonna get impeached.
 

The GOP loves its escalation: “we’ll see your ending filibusters which prevent anything from getting done and block a SCOTUS, violate blue slip traditions and make sure the Senate gets nothing done.”

They act all pious and blame the next impeachment on Democrats. No matter that this is over Foreign policy self-dealing, Congressional power of the purse, electoral malfeasance and obstruction of justice, the Democrat will be subject to articles on whatever the GOP can make up courtesy of their Russian sponsors.

Buckle up, boys. It’s gonna stay bumpy. The GOP is hurt and angry; they gotta whine and act out their desire for revenge. They have no interest in the big problems facing the nation. If they can continue to distract their racist base to the polls they can sweep along the rest with abortion, guns and fear of the enemy: Democrats & liberals.

It beats leadership & hard work.

I do not see it as a stretch that Clinton was impeached for obstruction. Yes, he lied about a blowjob.  He lied under oath in a civil case. That is obstruction of justice. He was disbarred for it, and he should have been. It is not his dumb personal choice to let an intern hob his knob with which I take issue, it is his dumb personal choice to lie under oath with which I take issue. 

In the present case, I see the obstruction of justice charge as being far more damning, because the acts leading to it are nothing short of an attack on our Constitution. We go through this to some extent with every GOP President, because his supporters rediscover their principled belief in the Unitary Executive Theory the moment a Republican is sworn into office (and forget it the moment a DemocRAT is). Our Constitution provides for checks and balances. I'm not so keen on seeing those eliminated for any person or any party. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Um, no.  The House followed the rules (which were created by Republicans).  Republicans were allowed to call anyone they wanted.  Anyone who could have cleared Trump was bullied into defying subpoenas.  

They may have followed the rules but they did not follow established principles of jurisprudence which seems to be exactly what all the fuss about McConnell is about.

BTW Republicans were not allowed to call anyone they wanted.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

They may have followed the rules but they did not follow established principles of jurisprudence which seems to be exactly what all the fuss about McConnell is about.

BTW Republicans were not allowed to call anyone they wanted.

You know as well as anyone here that an inquiry is not a trial. Calling witnesses is reserved for the trial in the Senate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

You know as well as anyone here that an inquiry is not a trial. Calling witnesses is reserved for the trial in the Senate.

Yet the whole of the echo chamber derided me when I have brought up that point previously. So either you are an idiot or I am not quite as stupid as the chamber makes me out to be, your choice.:lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I like how one the of the talking points has been that impeaching Trump will make a horrible tool just another thing that happens all the time.

Republicans are essentially saying that they now feel free to impeach anybody at any old time. Just like they nailed Clinton for his sexual impropriety, Democrats are gonna get impeached.
 

The GOP loves its escalation: “we’ll see your ending filibusters which prevent anything from getting done and block a SCOTUS, violate blue slip traditions and make sure the Senate gets nothing done.”

They act all pious and blame the next impeachment on Democrats. No matter that this is over Foreign policy self-dealing, Congressional power of the purse, electoral malfeasance and obstruction of justice, the Democrat will be subject to articles on whatever the GOP can make up courtesy of their Russian sponsors.

Buckle up, boys. It’s gonna stay bumpy. The GOP is hurt and angry; they gotta whine and act out their desire for revenge. They have no interest in the big problems facing the nation. If they can continue to distract their racist base to the polls they can sweep along the rest with abortion, guns and fear of the enemy: Democrats & liberals.

It beats leadership & hard work.

JONATHAN TURLEY: What concerns me the most is that there are no limiting principles that I could see in some of the definitions my colleagues have put forward and more importantly some of the impeachable offenses I only heard about today. I'm not sure what "attempting to abuse office" means or how you recognize it. But I'm pretty confident that nobody on this committee truly wants the new standard of impeachment to be "betrayal of the national interest." If that is going to be the basis for impeachment, how many Republicans do you think would say that Barack Obama violated that standard. That is exactly what James Madison warned you against. That you could create, effectively, a vote of no confidence standard in our constitution.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

Yet the whole of the echo chamber derided me when I have brought up that point previously. So either you are an idiot or I am not quite as stupid as the chamber makes me out to be, your choice.:lol::lol:

WTF are you talking about?  Is it opposite day?  You and the other Trumpaloos have been incessant in your critique of the political nature of the House inquiry.  Now, when there's an actual trial you think anything goes?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

JONATHAN TURLEY: What concerns me the most is that there are no limiting principles that I could see in some of the definitions my colleagues have put forward and more importantly some of the impeachable offenses I only heard about today. I'm not sure what "attempting to abuse office" means or how you recognize it. But I'm pretty confident that nobody on this committee truly wants the new standard of impeachment to be "betrayal of the national interest." If that is going to be the basis for impeachment, how many Republicans do you think would say that Barack Obama violated that standard. That is exactly what James Madison warned you against. That you could create, effectively, a vote of no confidence standard in our constitution.

It's not betrayal of national interest, it's putting personal interest above national interest, which is unconstitutional.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

They may have followed the rules but they did not follow established principles of jurisprudence which seems to be exactly what all the fuss about McConnell is about.

BTW Republicans were not allowed to call anyone they wanted.

Please explain which established principles of jurisprudence were not followed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, warbird said:

Yet the whole of the echo chamber derided me when I have brought up that point previously. So either you are an idiot or I am not quite as stupid as the chamber makes me out to be, your choice.:lol::lol:

Your life is a monument to stupidity. When the echo chamber hears you, they automatically think of drool. You got as lucky as the last sperm in 100 million that allowed your birth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Please explain which established principles of jurisprudence were not followed. 

The right to confront the accuser, The right to have counsel present, admissibility of hearsay and speculation, access to evidence, the right to call witnesses......

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

The right to confront the accuser, The right to have counsel present, admissibility of hearsay and speculation, access to evidence, the right to call witnesses......

Those are not established rules regarding impeachment. Do you have a proper cite to the contrary?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first heard McConnell's comments, I was kind of curious why he'd be so blunt. 

But realizing that McConnell is, if nothing else, a cold calculating bastard, I think this is his version of 'poll testing' the witch hunt defense for his republican colleges.  Republicans in Nov 2020 are simply going to hang their hat on the 'witch-hunt from the start' narrative and play Nadler's campaign propaganda about being 'the best guy to go after Trump'  as evidence that the democrats were never sincere and there is no principled argument - it's all politics - and therefore there isn't even pretense of a fair trial.  McConnell already shot down the White House laundry list of witnesses.. he wants to get this over with by Jan.  By the way, i think the January date is actually a compromise to Schumer - who wants a clean primary season.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

When I first heard McConnell's comments, I was kind of curious why he'd be so blunt. 

But realizing that McConnell is, if nothing else, a cold calculating bastard, I think this is his version of 'poll testing' the witch hunt defense for his republican colleges.  Republicans in Nov are simply going to hang their hat on the 'witch-hunt from the start' narrative and play Nadler's campaign propaganda about being 'the best guy to go after Trump'  as evidence that the democrats were never sincere and there is no principled argument - it's all politics - and therefore there isn't even pretense of a fair trial.  He already shot down the White House laundry list of witnesses.. he wants to get the over with by Jan.

 

 

The only problem with that tactic is how much negative evidence to the contrary is uncovered between now and November?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

The right to confront the accuser, The right to have counsel present, admissibility of hearsay and speculation, access to evidence, the right to call witnesses......

The accuser is not the whistleblower. The accuser is everybody who read the transcript. The Repubs had councel present. They also had Republicans present, since a bunch of them are on the committee. Hearsay is a form of evidence (the witness who overheard the phone conversation between Sondland and Trump presented straight-up testimony - not hearsay). Access to all evidence was provided. The Repubs blocked witnesses more than they were disallowed witnesses.

What else ya got?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmilliken said:

When I first heard McConnell's comments, I was kind of curious why he'd be so blunt. 

But realizing that McConnell is, if nothing else, a cold calculating bastard, I think this is his version of 'poll testing' the witch hunt defense for his republican colleges.  Republicans in Nov are simply going to hang their hat on the 'witch-hunt from the start' narrative and play Nadler's campaign propaganda about being 'the best guy to go after Trump'  as evidence that the democrats were never sincere and there is no principled argument - it's all politics - and therefore there isn't even pretense of a fair trial.

That disregards the growing portion of the country who put the country's interest before either of the parties'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That disregards the growing portion of the country who put the country's interest before either of the parties'. 

Yea it does :)

Which is why I think he's poll testing it to see what kind of blow back he gets.

17 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

The only problem with that tactic is how much negative evidence to the contrary is uncovered between now and November?

And you're right as well.  That is the risk.

I didn't say he was right, but I do think that's what he's doing.  His comment is ridiculous on its face.  Turtle is a lot of things but I actually don't think he's stupid.  So that's my conclusion.  He did it intentionally to chum the waters and see what comes up.  I'm betting money that that the RNC is furiously scanning twitter as we type to gauge the response.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Yea it does :)

Which is why I think he's poll testing it to see what kind of blow back he gets.

And you're right as well.  That is the risk.

I didn't say he was right, but I do think that's what he's doing.  His comment is ridiculous on its face.  Turtle is a lot of things but I actually don't think he's stupid.  So that's my conclusion.  He did it intentionally to chum the waters and see what comes up.  I'm betting money that that the RNC is furiously scanning twitter as we type to gauge the response.

He is not at all stupid.  He is calculating, and fairness does not figure into his calculations. I'd rather hear him say that both sides can call their witnesses.  Any witnesses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I think McConnell is refreshingly honest. He clearly could not give even the most minuscule shit about the rule of law, separation of powers, the Constitution, or anything else that impedes Republicans. He owns it, he is out load and proud.

 

Will Moscow Mitch be in the Senate long enough to experience the Institution losing any constitutional power it once enjoyed?  Or will he and his wife take their money and power and leave before that?

With the Senate a quisling to the President, and the judiciary safely in the hands of dependable conservative judges, how long can the House stand up to the constitutional coup in progress? Before they bow on bended knee to God’s anointed king?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Yea it does :)

Which is why I think he's poll testing it to see what kind of blow back he gets.

And you're right as well.  That is the risk.

I didn't say he was right, but I do think that's what he's doing.  His comment is ridiculous on its face.  Turtle is a lot of things but I actually don't think he's stupid.  So that's my conclusion.  He did it intentionally to chum the waters and see what comes up.  I'm betting money that that the RNC is furiously scanning twitter as we type to gauge the response.

I agree, unfortunately for Mitch, I think he gives himself too much credit. The next move for the House is to petition the courts to validate Congressional power under the Constitution. The courts will be obliged to resolve that problem before the election; it could create huge issues for Trump when witnesses and redacted documents are called front and center.

With a little more than ten months to go, Trump also has to be worried about whistleblowers; they tend to come out at the exact wrong time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Dog said:

The right to confront the accuser, The right to have counsel present, admissibility of hearsay and speculation, access to evidence, the right to call witnesses......

They did call witnesses.

They did have access to evidence, shucks they redacted a lot of it before allowing anybody else including Democrats to see it

"Hearsay and speculation" is just bullshit. Unless you mean that SOndland and Vindman and a few others testified what they HEARD Trump SAY. That's perfectly admissible evidence.

They did have counsel present

Confront the accuser? Like who, Schiff and Nadler? President Trump confronts them daily, and could do so in person any time he wished. THe whistleblower? Trump threatened to have him (or her) killed, that's a pretty strong confrontation if you ask me.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

 

With a little more than ten months to go, Trump also has to be worried about whistleblowers; they tend to .....

 

 

...be discovered or manufactured, trained, coached and fed a narrative,  and appear just on time....

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, warbird said:

...be discovered or manufactured, trained, coached and fed a narrative,  and appear just on time....

So Warbird, assuming Trump wins, any advise on the resulting niceties of the act of supplication?  For example, if a factory wants to stop treating effluent, who do they pay off?  Or do they just do it?  If you’re, say, downstream, and don’t like it, who do you supplicate to stop it?  A conservative judge?  And if he has already been bought by the upstream factory, what do you do?  Give money to a politician?  Property?  What do you if the politician takes your gift and does nothing, or worse, accuses you of bribery?  

It’s pretty obvious We snowflakes need to be schooled on the art of living in a feudal society.  We appreciate the help!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

right on call Donnie shitstain says why he should be impeached

Or it’s a call to arms, instruction to his Senate quislings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

They may have followed the rules but they did not follow established principles of jurisprudence which seems to be exactly what all the fuss about McConnell is about.

BTW Republicans were not allowed to call anyone they wanted.

Because their witness list was a "Who's Who" of people from an Infowars conspiracy video. They threw a bunch of shit at the process then screamed when no one wanted to smell it.

They only requested a few serious witnesses (eg. Sondland), and every one of them made it worse for Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:
1 hour ago, Nice! said:

Please explain which established principles of jurisprudence were not followed. 

The right to confront the accuser, The right to have counsel present, admissibility of hearsay and speculation, access to evidence, the right to call witnesses......

Trump was invited. He declined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
40 minutes ago, warbird said:

...be discovered or manufactured, trained, coached and fed a narrative,  and appear just on time....

Yet others call it patriotism.

That depends, of course if the whistle-blown is a Real AmericanTM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Because their witness list was a "Who's Who" of people from an Infowars conspiracy video. They threw a bunch of shit at the process then screamed when no one wanted to smell it.

They only requested a few serious witnesses (eg. Sondland), and every one of them made it worse for Trump.

Let all those guys testify at the trial.  Bullshitters don't do so well when they are under oath. Even Alex Jones had to admit that he was just a performance artist once he got put in the hot seat.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Let all those guys testify at the trial.  Bullshitters don't do so well when they are under oath. Even Alex Jones had to admit that he was just a performance artist once he got put in the hot seat.  

And who is going to prosecute them for BSing under oath in the Senate?  Certainly not the republican senators under Mitch's leadership or Barr's justice department.  They all answer to a higher authority than the constitution.   I think the house made a big mistake by not going to court for the ignored subpoenas and not listing every fucking infraction Trump has made since he announced he was going to be president on the escalator. 

Flaming bag of dog shit 2020, but we will get Trump instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
33 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Because their witness list was a "Who's Who" of people from an Infowars conspiracy video. They threw a bunch of shit at the process then screamed when no one wanted to smell it.

They only requested a few serious witnesses (eg. Sondland), and every one of them made it worse for Trump.

Let all those guys testify at the trial.  Bullshitters don't do so well when they are under oath. Even Alex Jones had to admit that he was just a performance artist once he got put in the hot seat.  

The big one they were bitching about was Hunter Biden. They really wanted Hunter Biden to testify.

I can see why they did not - putting him on the stand would only open the circus up to even more grandstanding over conspiracy theories and nonsense, while achieving what Trump could not $400Million in leverage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bridhb said:

And who is going to prosecute them for BSing under oath in the Senate?  Certainly not the republican senators under Mitch's leadership or Barr's justice department.  They all answer to a higher authority than the constitution.   I think the house made a big mistake by not going to court for the ignored subpoenas and not listing every fucking infraction Trump has made since he announced he was going to be president on the escalator. 

Flaming bag of dog shit 2020, but we will get Trump instead.

I'm not so sure. The may vote to impeach, but then refuse to hand it over to the Senate until the eve of inauguration date. That way there's a chance the makup of the Senate could change.

Or they maybe held back on some infractions on purpose so that, as soon as they hand it over to the Senate, they start another impeachment inquiry. This cycle can continue until the next election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nice! said:

I'm not so sure. The may vote to impeach, but then refuse to hand it over to the Senate until the eve of inauguration date. That way there's a chance the makup of the Senate could change.

Or they maybe held back on some infractions on purpose so that, as soon as they hand it over to the Senate, they start another impeachment inquiry. This cycle can continue until the next election.

They need to start advertising how many bills they have passed and sent over to the Senate in the past 3 years.  Like every time a Democrat speaks to anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Because their witness list was a "Who's Who" of people from an Infowars conspiracy video. They threw a bunch of shit at the process then screamed when no one wanted to smell it.

They only requested a few serious witnesses (eg. Sondland), and every one of them made it worse for Trump.

Oh please...The deck was stacked. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amati said:

Traditional patriotism is about to be stamped out.  

Squish.

I really, really, hate the thought of becoming a gun owner again. Maybe I'll specialize in something else.

 

Just now, Swimsailor said:

Let's repeat...anyone who could have cleared Trump refused to testify. 

Yeah, innocent people don't fear testimony.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Let's repeat...anyone who could have cleared Trump refused to testify. 

Do you really think there is anyone who could give honest testimony that would clear Trump?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:
52 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Because their witness list was a "Who's Who" of people from an Infowars conspiracy video. They threw a bunch of shit at the process then screamed when no one wanted to smell it.

They only requested a few serious witnesses (eg. Sondland), and every one of them made it worse for Trump.

Oh please...The deck was stacked. 

They could have, I don't know, acted like adults and treated it seriously instead of turning it into an Alex Jones inspired clown show.

There is ZERO reason the GOP members couldn't have pressed all these witnesses who ostensibly could have instantly cleared Trump but refused their subpoenas to come.

They only called a couple of serious witnesses. The rest were jokes intended to make a mockery and a shit how of the process.

Had they called Pompeo, Bolton, etc. I'm sure Schiff would have had no issues with it.

 

What witnesses were the GOP denied that actually had anything material to do with the matter at hand and not just conspiracy theory whackjob stuff? Hunter Briden? Alex Chalupa? Give me a break.

They called Volker and Morrison - how'd that work out for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bridhb said:

Do you really think there is anyone who could give honest testimony that would clear Trump?

In theory, yes. In that there are people that know 100% of the truth of what happened.

In practice, would that clear Trump? Of course not, he's guilty as fuck and we know it as well as Devin Nunes and his cow do.

 

The GOP does not want any witnesses in there that can truthfully and accurately testify to what happened, because they'll all be fucked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, warbird said:

No need to testify until the trial opens in the Senate. Why tip your hand? Impeachment was a foregone conclusion once Nancy announced an inquiry. 

We finally agree about something, but I will add we have no idea if McConnell will allow witnesses, He already knows how this ends.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

I thought that a SCOTUS justice ran the trial.

He presides, but McConnell has much to do with how things run, including controlling some voting and motions, I think he can do things like limit or eliminate witnesses, stuff like that.

I'm not fully clear on what his day to day role is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Mitch McConnell today stated that any impeachment proceedings in the Senate  that "Everything I do in this, I'm coordinating with Whithouse counsel."

Yes, the man responsible for ensuring a fair and impartial impeachment trial (in which he is a juror) has openly stated that he will run the impeachment exactly how Trump wants it done.

He will allow what (if any) witness testify that Trump wants. He will only allow evidence in that Trump wants.

On the other hand, this may be the long game by Pelosi I've discussed before. Send the articles to the senate, then watch the GOP Senators set themselves on fire protecting an overwhelmingly guilty president.

 

She knows she can't get Trumped removed by the GOP Senate. But she CAN let them take themselves down with him in 2020.

I'm not saying I like it either, but I've been told many times by Osen and Gay'zer and the rest of the elk that impeachment is a "political process".  Ergo, the players are going to behave like "Politicians".  

Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

The right to confront the accuser, The right to have counsel present, admissibility of hearsay and speculation, access to evidence, the right to call witnesses......

Trump had every opportunity to confront his accuser, or to present witnesses. He chose not to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Oh please...The deck was stacked. 

LIE ALERT

1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:
1 hour ago, Dog said:

The deck was stacked. 

Let's repeat...anyone who could have cleared Trump refused to testify. 

Or forbidden by Trump to testify.

It will be interesting to see if that gets turned around if the Senate actually calls witnesses... which they might not do. If Senate Republicans are going to vote "Trump Is Innocent No Matter What" then why call a lot witnesses who will only take up time and make it more risky?

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

Let's repeat...anyone who could have cleared Trump refused to testify. 

There is a mechanism for resolving conflicts between the executive and the legislative like limits on executive privilege. Democrats are in too much of a hurry to avail themselves of it. (or perhaps they knew they would lose).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm not saying I like it either, but I've been told many times by Osen and Gay'zer and the rest of the elk that impeachment is a "political process".  Ergo, the players are going to behave like "Politicians".  

Just saying.

The Constitution relies upon ambition for power to drive the separation of powers. When that gives way to allegiance to party, boom goes the dynamite. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

There is a mechanism for resolving conflicts between the executive and the legislative like limits on executive privilege. Democrats are in too much of a hurry to avail themselves of it. (or perhaps they knew they would lose).

Silly dog. “Congress SHALL have the SOLE power of impeachment”.

Running off to the courts for arbitrage assumes power they don’t have.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fakenews said:

Silly dog. “Congress SHALL have the SOLE power of impeachment”.

Running off to the courts for arbitrage assumes power they don’t have.

 

Of course...but the courts are where you settle disputes over executive privilege.

Link to post
Share on other sites