Posted on 01/17/2020 7:21:14 PM PST by John Semmens
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), characterized the case for removing Trump from office as "irrefutable. We heard from enough witnesses to prove the case beyond any doubt. That's why we insist that we should be allowed to call more witnesses at his trial in the Senate."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) questioned Nadler's logic, asking "if the House heard enough from their witnesses to prove their case then shouldn't the transcript and arguments from their case managers be sufficient? In contrast to the last impeachment, the accused in this case was denied the opportunity to present any witnesses in his own defense during the House hearings. I suppose a simple-minded individual like Mr. Nadler might deem a one-sided hearing irrefutable proof, but any reasonable person would find such a biased proceeding inadequate for a fair assessment of guilt or innocence. Perhaps we should balance the scales by allowing the defense's previously barred witnesses to be heard in the Senate trial."
Nadler objected that "any witnesses that Trump might call would only muddy the waters. Since their testimony would not focus on Trump's crimes it is irrelevant to the matter we are prosecuting. To my way of thinking, we should only entertain an admission of guilt and a full confession to the crimes he is charged with committing. This alone could end the need to continue efforts to remove him from office and begin the process of uniting all Americans in a common purpose of healing the divisions that divide us from being united."
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/275150-2020-01-17-semi-news-semi-satire-january-19-2019-editionby-john-semmens.htm
ping
In what multiverse has this feat been accomplished?
The only logical answer is that RATs aren’t logical.
John this one is too close to the truth to be funny. Scary!
I haven’t been following the clowns in this side show very closely. The Constitution says < crimes and misdemeanors >.
Can someone reference the exact line in a criminal statue that Trump is accuse of breaking? Not the breaking headline version. But the actual law?
Good satire here John :-)
And in the sick, perverted and demented minds of Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, this is true. They have no facts, only, lies deceit, rumors. But as they say: Facts: We don’t need no stinking Facts!!
Boy, I hope the likes of Alan Dershowitz can handle this powerhouse....
That would be Article 58 of the Soviet Constitution of (I believe) 1927.
It essentially states that if you are accused, the accusation proves your guilt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.