Posted on 12/20/2019 6:15:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was right to so eloquently smack down cryin’ Chuck Schumer’s request for a “Schumer do-over” of the House impeachment process with unheard-from witnesses. If, as House Democrats insist, the “evidence” is “uncontested,” why does Schumer seek new evidence and want to hear new witnesses, providing a list of White House advisers but not a list that includes the alleged Ukraine whistleblower?
Schumer whines that McConnell has said he will take his cues on a Senate trial from President Trump, whom the House denied due process and the right to confront his accuser. Too bad, cryin’ Chuck, for just as in the House, elections have consequences. Republicans won the Senate so you play by their rules
Schumer pretends that a Senate impeachment trial is like a trial in criminal or civil court and that McConnell can’t act as both a juror and a defense attorney. Of course he can -- an impeachment trial is more of a political process than a judicial one. Schumer is trying to depose a sitting President of the United States and overturn the results of an election, disenfranchising 63 million voters, without a crime or evidence of a crime, and he wants to talk about fairness?
McConnell is no more “tainted” as a juror for working with President Trump than the Senate Democrats, also jurors, who ran and are still running against Trump in 2020 -- Kobuchar, Harris, Warren, Booker, Sanders. They had or have a vested interest in Trump’s removal that in a regular trial would constitute a disqualifying conflict of interest. They would personally benefit from Trump’s removal so should they recuse themselves as some have asked McConnell to do?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Republicans won the Senate so you play by their rules”
Aren’t we all supposed to play by the rules of the Constitution?
The rules of the Constitution are open to interpretation. /s
We all do, but this is Public Serve Us we’re talkin bout. It’s Calvin ball at it’s finest.
Odd how the Democrats ran a sham “trial” in the House violating Trumps civil liberties and then have a tantrum and hake their ball and go home if they can’t do the same in the Senate. The only explanation is that they are hypocrites.
Also, the whole idea that the impeachment hearings are not a trial is BS. The less informed do look at it as a trial, I consider it a trial, and the results, an impeachment, are very serious in their minds. Claiming that it is not a trial is only parsing words. Perception is everything.
The House “trial” is a show for the American people and the world as a true trial. And as a true trial, it is clear that Democrats will happily break rules right and left, and disregard a persons civil liberties in a second if it gets them a perceived win.
If we have learned anything from this mess is that the Democrats have shown their true feelings and colors towards the rule of law and liberties. May God help us if the gain control.
Were the methods employed by Schiff constitutional?
Constitution gives the Senate SOLE AUTHORITY to conduct the trial after impeachment has passed by the House. Pelosi has zero power to dictate any terms.
Aren’t we all supposed to play by the rules of the Constitution?According to the Constitution, the Senate makes the rules.
——why does Schumer seek new evidence ——
Schumer is not seeking new evidence. He is seeking evidence
He knows the House managers have no evidence to be presented at all
Funny Ginsburg did not talk about Congressional Democrats bias.
It's going to look pretty bad when only one witness is called ( all the others produced hearsay - not allowed under federal court rules of evidence) and his evidence is based on his own assumption which President Trump specifically stated was not the case. Their case isn't just bad it's non-existent. My guess is that Pelosi may be having trouble finding house managers who want anything to do with this dogs dinner.
My guess is that Pelosi may be having trouble finding house managers who want anything to do with this dogs dinner.
Not only a dog’s dinner, a second hand dog’s dinner.
Something the Congress vomited up in a hurry...
And now can't be bothered to get to the Senate. I think there's a limit, albeit pretty wide, that even a congresscritter is prepared to make a fool of themselves.
——My guess is that Pelosi may be having trouble finding house manager——
Now that is a great thought
Last night I saw Lindsey Graham who reminded us he was a House manager for the Clinton impeachment involving actual felonies
My wife and I then tried to remember the others. They were all pretty much destroyed by various different means. I think perhaps lindsey Graham may be the only survivor.
With that in mind, being a House manager in the current effort is in effect a political death sentence
There was only one fact witness (meaning one witness that had first-hand knowledge, not hearsay) who testified in the House, and that was ambassador Gordon Sondland. When asked why he thought there was a quid-pro-quo, he answered he assumed it. When asked what President Trump told him, he answered that PDJT told him he wanted nothing from the Ukrainians, he did not want a quid-pro-quo.
Case closed.
Mitch to House prosecutors: "Do you have any other witnesses with first hand knowledge?"
House Prosecutors: "We rest our case".
Mitch: "Let's vote"
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.