Posted on 01/31/2020 8:31:56 PM PST by Cboldt
At least his comments were appropriate to the situation - especially: “The same people to say “how dare Trump disagree with our intelligence professionals” are also the ones doubting the “intelligence professionals” on Soleimani planning an imminent attack.”
And he voted the right way.
But even if one is a fresh observer they could not have missed the D's initial behavior in this fiasco, at least as it appeared on television to the greater part of America.
There was the crowd of R congressmen clamoring to be a part of the 'secret" inquisition in the House basement and Schiff's blatant manipulation of, and suppression, of relevant evidence in the House committee hearings.
The vote for calling new witnesses and documents was perhaps only Round 2 of this struggle. The D's fully anticipated and are well prepared to be where they are right now and carry on the battle. Prior to the vote each of several speakers demanded a fair trial. Following the vote they perpetuated the myth that "75% of American's want more witnesses and documents."
America's leaders should recognize the claim, "It ain't over 'till its over" fails to capture the full potential of the event, just as it would have on December 10, 1941.
In this affair they have unnecessarily allowed the "trial" to move to the streets.
Good point, although there is yet time to balance that aspect.
It seems likely up to this point WH counsel specifically intended to address its case to the intellectual level of the Senate, a group that disproportionately includes lawyers and former judges.
Public events during the next 4-5 days, particularly those spurred by the MSM, together with novel, never-before-seen maneuvering by the House may induce counsel in its closing remarks to address the typical American Voter.
The address would include noting the difference between the concept of fairness in a legal trial, heavily weighted in procedural requirements, and the blended but just as total amount of fairness required for an impeachment conviction delivered by "expert" jurors. It could point to the obvious pre-launch House bias that continues at every step.
There are only two ways this ends.
The public gets sick and tired of it and vote the socialists out of office next election. OR..
We end up in civil conflict-I mean the violent kind. We are at the shouting stage now.
I predict that it will be the later because even if thrown out by the next election, they will not yield.
Look at the history of our “mother” country, England. How many civil wars they have had in history.
What if the whistle blower is a fictional character made up by Shiffty and his staff?
I noted elsewhere that Schiff stated in the "trial" that Pence knew all about it and did nothing. With luck and the right moves by the Left we could be looking at President Pelosi; although the best of a worst case may be we are only looking at President Sanders.
We end up in civil conflict...
IMO, even with obvious exceptions, our society is too fragile to survive a prolonged "hot" civil war. We will be lucky to effectively deal with even a anti-VN war type of activity. A serious civil war will be similar to the 911 shut down of highways and air flights except for a much longer and painful duration (interrupted food supplies, medical services, utilities, etc). At the same time we will be significantly compromised by all manner of foreign agents and criminal elements - at a time when LE is severely strained or not in existence.
We end up in civil conflict-I mean the violent kind.
More likely, and often beyond violent.
Last March Rep. Schiff said there was "little to be gained by putting the country through" the "wrenching experience" of a partisan impeachment.
But then they decided to do it anyway.
The House admitted they didn't try to enforce testimony of witnesses in court because it would tie them up in litigation for a year. But then spent weeks demanding the Senate do it now. We were never going to play this stupid game with them
The same people to say "how dare Trump disagree with our intelligence professionals" are also the ones doubting the "intelligence professionals" on Soleimani planning an imminent attack.
The poll tested "stealing the election" line was also a joke. Was Trump trying to tamper with voting equipment or something? I wanted to laugh every time they said it but I think laughing was against the Senate impeachment rules
most obnoxious argument was the "I have secret information that's damning,but I can't divulge it" Total crap. We have access to the same information & you don't have squat. If you did it would be leaked. Just like the mole at NSC illegally leaking portions of Bolton's book.
Bottom line is despite not initially wanting to do it they were bullied into impeachment by radical far left voices they are afraid of. Then they fell in love with the case & the cameras & the adoration of the media & forgot the damage impeachment inflicts on the country.
When you've lost Rubio...
Watch though -- just like the ridiculous imbecile in Georgia still claims her inevitable election to governor was stolen, the losers of the Demagogic Party will continue to harp on this, attributing their own partisan and anti-Constitutional behavior in the House to the upcoming bipartisan acquittal in the Senate.
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.