The Schumer Strategy
Today the House of Representative will put the vote to impeach the President of the United States to it's full membership. Neither of the two Articles of Impeachment involve any specific crimes. They are "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" . Moderate democrats will face a terrible choice. A NO vote may mean a primary challenge come next election. A YES vote may mean defeat in the general election. The Speaker also faced the choice of losing her Speakership or losing her majority in the House. All of this has been driven by the radical left of the democratic party which has been determined to overturn the 2016 election.
After today this rushed partisan resolution will be handed over to the US Senate. The House never made much of a real case for impeachment. Witnesses like John Bolton could have helped their case, but House democrats did not want to wait for a Court decision which would determine executive privilege. Now the Senate can really make short order of disposing of the entire matter and a vote of acquittal there along party lines would give the President complete vindication and allow him to point to it as an attempt by democrats to soil him before an election. There is one trip-wire though and that would be allowing the Senate minority a chance to litigate the case, which the House did such poor job of. Once that threshold is crossed all kinds of weird things could happen. Maybe new information could be found? Four democratic Senators running for president against Donald Trump would be sitting in judgement.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has made one thing clear: he wants to hear from witnesses! He recently sent the Senate leader Mitch McConnell a formal letter stating that he wanted four officials who refused to participate in the House impeachment inquiry to testify during the trial: acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Mulvaney aide Robert Blair, and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey.
Schumer hasn't missed any opportunities to make his case and make it look like the President is hiding something and the Senate leader must play along for the sake of "fairness". Suddenly the democrats want fair play. Before reporters only a few days ago he made another pitch:
"The Senate and millions across the country are asking, what is the president hiding?" "Why doesn't he want the facts to come out?" "Trials have witnesses. That's what trials are all about. Live testimony is the best way to go and for the trial to be fair, Senators must get all the facts. ... So to engage in a trial without the facts coming out is to engage in a cover-up. To conduct a trial without the facts is saying we're afraid. There is no reason on God's green Earth why they shouldn't be called and testify unless you're afraid of what they might say."
The danger for Republicans is the unknown of travelling down the trial road, not knowing where such proceedings will go. Fortunately the ultimate decision rests with the most astute tactician in Congress - Senate Leader Mitch McConnell
McConnell Responded:
"It is not the Senate’s job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to ‘guilty."
The Majority Leader said Schumer’s proposal would set a “nightmarish precedent” for future impeachment trials.
“The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury, to hear a trial, not to re-run the entire fact-finding investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it”.
It should all be very interesting and sad.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
302 visitors
The full House vote will be posted here.
Rules of civility in effect
Just one word to describe the whole pathetic impeachment drama the Dems have instigated. HOGWASH!
Don't forget, CNN has instructed the idiots who still watch to refer to the partisan baseless impeachment circus as "historic."
Lol, ya, that was a bitter pill to swallow.
Right now most of TV is showing these hateful progressives making their disgusting hateful speeches. Can you imagine how the voters are going to respond to this.
They will lose everything....These hate-filled ideologues
It's telling that you think a "Democrat dilemma" is the news of the day.
Hopefully other people will seed articles that are more relevant to this historic occasion. Trump did this to himself.
ONE DAY after Mueller testified to the Congress and Trump had a chance to reset and possibly move on from all that, he dove back in by asking another foreign government to try and influence the US election in his favor.
He is getting everything he deserves.
If only his base was not entranced into protecting him no matter what. We could be moving past this abomination of a presidency, not wallowing in it.
One thing that brings a smile - Trump is beginning to realize that his impeachment will mean there wont be as many opportunities to see the Trump name sprawled out across the face of buildings in the future. His "brand" is damaged , probably beyond repair in that sense.
You have that backwards. It's the democrats who are trying to influence a US election. One they know they can't win honestly.
No, Vic, that would be a LIE. Trump has help from Russia, just like last time. Seen them on social media? I sure have. Listen to the Group of Pussies excuse Trump's treason. Surprise! Its all propaganda straight from Putin. You project just like Trump does. Now the entire party is going to vote to protect Trump over the country.
So we were told by the lying liberals of CNN. Do you have any evidence of that outrageous statement?
Seen them on social media? I sure have.
Whom? Do tell...
Its all propaganda straight from Putin.
So you say, every chance you get. Sorry, it's not sticking.
Now the entire party is going to vote to protect Trump over the country.
Oh and progressives are out to defend the Constitution? The same one they want to rip the first two amendments out of? The one they want to rip the electoral college out of? The one progressive judges contradict at every opportunity?
Trump has help from Russia, just like last time. Seen them on social media?
No he didn't, no votes were actually changed, but perhaps some were influenced by social media.....which is perfectly legal and aboveboard, by the way
Every government and political party does it. .
Ever Seen the "articles/seeds" against Trump here ?
So, you admit that Ukraine is capable of meddling in US elections? Is that admission based upon evidence, such as Ukraine's role in the 2016 election?
Yes, the impeachment trial does provide an opportunity to find out what is being hidden. IG Michael Horowitz provided a hint. But just a hint. Chuck Schumer is pursuing the proper thing for the wrong reason. Schumer wanting to play New York politics against a New York politician won't end well.
The time has come for serious scrutiny of the bureaucratic enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic activities. It's time to burn down unelected Washington. The FBI has already successfully burned several CIA and diplomatic assets and destroyed faith in the FISA process. The CIA and the diplomatic corps should have an opportunity to burn the FBI. Sweet revenge is a dish best served cold.
Schumer doesn't give drooly crap about anything that has been hidden from the public. Schumer is only doing this because he thinks he deserves to take McConnell's finely upholstered chair. Schumer would destroy everything for his own political gain. Let him.
To paraphrase Democrats, James Comey did this to himself.
Yes, that is the 'ends justify the means' argument underlying the whole political episode. But look at Brennan's comment closely. Isn't Brennan really making the case that to avoid foreign meddling in elections, it's necessary for the enforcement and intelligence bureaucracy to meddle in elections? The obviously democratic thing to have done would have been to warn the public so voters would know what is going on. But that's not what happened. 'Russian meddling' was twisted into a political disinformation and counter intelligence campaign and the flow of information was carefully manipulated to attempt to influence the public. Trying to run a Radio Free America campaign is business as usual for the intelligence and diplomatic agencies that meddle in foreign elections. Keep in mind that some of those 'Russian' meme on the internet may have been produced by the US government; there isn't any way to know for certain.
Brennan (and Comey, for that matter) are trying to justify bureaucratic meddling to avoid electing the 'wrong candidate'. The intelligence agencies were trying to place Trump under their thumb; Trump was a 'Russian stooge' so must be controlled. Bureaucratic corruption isn't limited to Ukraine, it seems.
IMO, what has happened goes far beyond hubris; this is more an example of an arrogant divine right for intelligence agencies to do as they wish. The FBI deliberately lied to the FISA court. Tampering with evidence was not a mistake. IG Horowitz tried to water down the corruption within the FBI by using politically acceptable sound bites. And Horowitz barely scratched the surface.
The FBI aren't just cops any longer. The FBI has become a state police with authority to conduct domestic intelligence activities. The FBI doesn't enforce law; the FBI protects the state. The FBI has become the KGB or the Schutzstaffel. Political Washington is accountable to the FBI and other intelligence agencies. When a state police determines guilt or innocence (for political purposes) then the courts have become accountable to the state police; the state police operates outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The intelligence community, as protectors of the state, is above the law.
Obstruction of Congress? It's now a removable offense to assert your rights before the Supreme Court?
What a joke.
If a president tries to invoke executive privilege it is considered an obstruction of congress. Didn't you know? I wonder what James Madison would have thought about that?
If the Supreme Court orders him to turn over documents and he refuses, then impeaching him makes sense. To do it now, before the Court has even ruled, is the actual abuse of power.
That is correct and exactly why the Court is positioned between two other branches of government.
I agree.
How can the court rule when Trump hasn't even evoked a specific privilege? He just put out a blanket 'not allowed to testify or turn over ANYTHING', not making a legal claim.
"The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week."
thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment
It's because he is exercising executive privilege by not responding to the Democrats illegal claim.
Forget Madison, try Barack Obama when he granted executive privilege to Holder and Holder's wife over Fast and Furious. But that wasn't obstruction was it?
He was invincible!
Is that a real law?
Sometimes Congress needs to be obstructed
Yes.
True, but then one should remember that Sammy Davis Jr song - "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time."
This House is setting a precedent that is going to come back and bite them in the ass when Republicans get the majority.
The law applies to both Houses. So when the Senate starts subpeonaing records and testimony, we will see who complies or they are going to Congress jail.
What crime has Trump been sentenced guilt?
Duh. Sentencing is in the Senate - so obviously, nothing yet.
The GOP members have already said they refuse to even examine the evidence, and Trump's administration has obstructed key witnesses from testifying, so clearly he won't actually be sentenced. There will not be impartial jurors, so the trial will be a travesty ... just a cover up for Trump with no attempt to get to the actual truth.
However, hopefully NY will nail Trump for financial crimes ... he already was fined $2 million for his fraudulent charity, and $33 million for his fraudulent university. What a despicable con man he is.
You are assuming he is guilty. That is the point, there is no guilt of a crime to do the time.
Apparently you have the entire case already worked out.
From the beginning.................to the end including in the House where it originated. This exercise isn't going to yield strength for the Democrat party.
It certainly isn't, people will remember this. The true travesty is the waste of taxpayer's hard earned money for this Democrat shit show.
Either Chamber of Congress can appoint it's own Sargent At Arms who can confine anyone in contempt. Washington's Tomb (there's no actual body there) is also called the Old Captial Jail. No one has ever been held there though. In 1868 a reporter was once held in a committee room and slept at the SAA's house. In 1934 William P. MacCracken Jr., was a prisoner in a hotel room for Contempt of the Senate over night. Capital Police have a holding cell 3 blocks from the Capital Buliding and Congress could legally commandeer space in the DC City Jail if they'd like to.
The same court that would have to convene a Grand Jury to agree to the Contempt of Congress change would be the only court (other than the SCOTUS) that could issue a writ. Congress can only hold someone to get them to comply not to punish them. It's the difference between criminal contempt and inherent contempt.
This blond woman speaking now for the Republicans sounds like she is about to cry.
Oh, the humanity.
Much different than yesterday when we had the rare opportunity of watching Alcee Hastings (D-FL), a former federal judge impeached and removed from the bench for taking bribes, participating in a House hearing that sets the rules for an impeachment.
It was sickening to watch.
The one who protested US policy in another country?
I suspect it was a little of both.
He had quite the libido
Impeachment didn't appear to have any effect on Hillary's hubby's presidency and career, and it will have none will have none on Trumps either.
There is kind of a double standard. During the Bill Clinton impeachment he had the msm on his side. Donald Trump has had them attacking him 24/7. Clinton rode off almost as martyr. For Trump it is different because of what is in the heart's of those who are pursuing this egregious injustice.
From post # 2
"One thing that brings a smile - Trump is beginning to realize that his impeachment will mean there wont be as many opportunities to see the Trump name sprawled out across the face of buildings in the future. His "brand" is damaged , probably beyond repair in that sense."
The Bidens like Hillary Clinton cannot be scrutinized. That's the way it works, but it's ok the nation is turning on the media and their allies in the democratic party.
The most recent from Gallup:
Currently, 46% support impeachment and removal, down six percentage points from the first reading after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry. Meanwhile, 51% oppose impeachment and removal -- up five percentage points over the same period.
Trump's latest job rating is on the high end of the relatively tight range of 35% to 46% approval he has received since taking office, and marks the fifth time he has reached 45% or higher during his presidency. His approval stretched to 46% only once, in May of this year , when a flurry of positive economic news coincided with the issuing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report.
"The Schumer Strategy"
" Not convinced on Impeachment yet. ...call more witness's in the Senate hearing" !
"Aye, aye! and I'll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn , and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up."....Captain Ahab
This just in, courtesy of Jonathan Turley:
"I previously wrote about what I viewed as a dangerous trend among New York Democratic politicians pledging to charge former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort under state law to negate any benefit from a federal pardon by President Donald Trump. Democrats rallied supporters to the dubious cause of watering down the state protections against double jeopardy. It was the ultimate example of the mania surrounding Trump where citizens would take an axe to their own constitutional protections to get at Trump and his associates. The highly dubious effort was led by New York state attorney general Letitia James and, thankfully, it has failed. The New York courts are not nearly as dismissive of individual rights. The state charges were thrown out today on the basis of double jeopardy. The question is now whether this will be a prelude to a presidential pardon.
Manafort is serving until Christmas day 2024. However, his recent medical emergency (combined with this ruling) could lay the foundation for a pardon or commutation to secure his early release.
Manafort, 70, faced state charges of residential mortgage fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records under state law — charges that overlapped with his federal prosecution.
I have been highly critical of Manafort and I still have little sympathy for him. I do not view him as a worthy subject of a pardon. However, I am relieved that the courts showed more judgment and respect for individual rights than James and others who want to lower protections to score political points in prosecuting a Trump associate."
No, what he wants is for Trump to make Schumer's case for him. Democrats haven't been able to produce witnesses who can testify based on personal firsthand knowledge that the president did something that warrants removal office. So, they're hoping the president will simply give them a witness (or testify himself) who will give them the damning testimony they need.
There is nothing such a witness could say that wouldn't be twisted into something scandalous by the Democrats.
They have zero interest in exculpatory evidence or people who might defend Trump. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Did democrats just reject a motion for a manual call of the roll? Aren't we going to know who is voting for impeachment?
Probably want to keep it secret, as yet another example of their "transparency"
I suppose that authoritarian impulse has to keep bursting forth. At least the American public got to see what happens when democrats got the gavels in their hands. To these vicious ideologues impeachment is just a political tactic.
accuse the president of complete bs.
when he ignores the morons on the left he must be hiding something... LOL
the lunatic left never disappoints.
And the worst part is that we have to sit through their pretending to care about the Constitution!
they only like the constitution when it is not standing in their way of acting like tyrants
the coming spring/summer will be hilarious
November will be even better. Take note of the moderate democrats standing there telling us why they are voting for impeachment. Many of them are actually making their farewell speeches.
Yup, the same Speaker demanding that her members sacrifice their political careers in the furthering of progressive causes.
It's so true!
It's ridiculous. They need to see his taxes. They need to see his business records. They need him to produce witnesses to his conversations with Russians and Ukrainians. They need him to produce everything.
Meanwhile, for every normal criminal case, the prosecutor (or other accuser) is expected to produce the evidence.
since they failed in the house to actually prove anything they wanted the senate to continue investigating trump for them... LOL no dice.
The Vote on Impeachment:
The vote on Article One, abuse of power, was 230-197, with one vote of present. All Republicans voted against the article, joined by two Democrats. The vote on Article Two, obstruction of Congress, was 229-198, with one vote of present. All Republicans voted against the article, joined by three Democrats.
Which Democrats voted against impeachment?
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard : Perhaps the biggest surprise of the night came when Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii who is running for president, voted "present" on both articles. Gabbard had been coy about her vote ahead of Wednesday night. "After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no. I am standing in the center and have decided to vote present," Gabbard said in a statement. Although Gabbard is running for president, she is not running for re-election .