It’s Senate Republicans Who Are On Trial

  
Via:  john-russell  •  2 months ago  •  68 comments

It’s Senate Republicans Who Are On Trial
If a guilty defendant goes on the stand and basically shows they are guilty that is not a bad thing. Senate Republicans are on trial and here they are basically testifying against themselves. “They worked with Trump and McConnell to sabotage the trial.”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


You’ve probably now read about Mitch McConnell’s cover-up plan for a Senate impeachment trial. It’s outrageous and Democrats should fight it tooth and nail. But this is an important moment to remember just who is on trial. President Trump is obviously guilty. The President’s trial briefs concede as much – stating baldly the none of the alleged offenses are impeachable even if proven. It’s always been Senate Republicans who are on trial.

We know what Trump did. What remains to be seen is whether Senate Republicans will back his behavior. Monday evening we got a big part of the answer.


When we say that it’s senate Republicans who are on trial that’s not just rhetoric or word play. It’s the reality and understanding it is a guide to political action.

I’ve already seen a number of statements from Senate Democrats “hoping” that “Republican moderates” will force McConnell to backtrack. This is all wrong, not least because it prospectively credits the good faith of these supposed “moderates” who are in fact operating as McConnell’s foot soldiers in shutting the trial down. In other words, this is vouching for the good faith and good intentions of senators who deserve to be driven from office in November. Start making the case against them right now. If any of them think they are unfairly accused the solution is ready at hand.

For the Democrats making these pleas it demonstrates a painful and demoralizing passivity. In no part of life should we helplessly beg for things we can have no power to effect or gain.

There are half a dozen Republican senators in competitive races. They deserve to be held to account for this abdication of duty. If a guilty defendant goes on the stand and basically shows they are guilty that is not a bad thing. Senate Republicans are on trial and here they are basically testifying against themselves. “They worked with Trump and McConnell to sabotage the trial.”




We know the trial ends in the President’s acquittal. If that is the case the best result is for his defenders and accomplices to reveal as clearly as possible their insistence on covering up for him. So yes, it’s bad. Yes, it’s a disgrace. Yes, Democrats should fight it. But mainly it’s a vindication of what Democrats have been saying for years. Don’t beg. Keep the receipts And hold these men and women to account in November. Indeed hold them to account now so it matters in November.







Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago

“If you don’t have a real trial that you can judge impeachment on the merits, then this democracy is eroded,” Schumer told CNN “New Day” anchor John Berman. “And Mitch McConnell will go down in history as one of the people eroding democracy because he has gone along with President Trump’s cover up hook, line and sinker.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/schumer-rips-mcconnells-plan-to-fast-track-impeachment-trial-a-national-disgrace

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

President Trump is obviously guilty.

He is only guilty in the minds of some deluded and biased left wingers.

The Democrats case is weak and the so called "evidence" is not credible.

Trump deserves a fair trial

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  WallyW @1.1    2 months ago

Trump deserves a fair trial

Y won't McConnel give him and US one ?

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.2  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.1    2 months ago

Are you saying the Clinton trial wasn't fair? these are the same rules,  Or do you expect Mitch to fix the democrats complete fuck-up?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.1    2 months ago

Trump has been presumed to be guilty of something or other since he came down the escalator.

The Democrat hearings, after millions of dollars wasted trying to find an impeachable offense, have totally failed.

Now, thanks to some rational and honest adults in the Senate, Trump will be neither "Borked" nor "Kavanaughed"

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  WallyW @1.1    2 months ago
Trump deserves a fair trial

When the majority leader has publicly expressed his intention to work with the defendant, any semblance of 'fair' has already been compromised. No surprise in these hyper-partisan times.

Again, in trump's GOP, the motive is retribution, and in this instance it is aimed at the House. This charade cannot end soon enough as the outcome is already predetermined. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.4    2 months ago
This charade cannot end soon enough as the outcome is already predetermined. 

True that...and the failure to get rid of Trump after all the fuss and blather is going to fall right on the heads of the Democrats.

All these leftist morons accomplished is to make look Trump stronger and more credible, and the Dems stupid, weak, and vindictive.

.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
1.1.6  Transyferous Rex  replied to  loki12 @1.1.2    2 months ago
Are you saying the Clinton trial wasn't fair? these are the same rules

Come on! Clinton was the Goose. Trump is the Gander. You know the old saying, and know better than to think that anyone on the left agrees with it. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.3    2 months ago
The Democrat hearings, after millions of dollars wasted trying to find an impeachable offense, have totally failed.

Totally ignoring all the witness testimony and evidence, huh?

Now, thanks to some rational and honest adults in the Senate, Trump will be neither "Borked" nor "Kavanaughed"
  • By refusing to mount any kind of defense?
  • By refusing to allow witnesses to testify (i.e. Bolton)?
  • By refusing to present ANY evidence to exonerate him?

When was the last time a criminal case was thrown out of court only because the suspect claimed innocence?

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Yes, and Republican senators are now part of a cover-up. With the three women managers, it brings back Madeline Albright's supernova moment of declaring a special spot in Hell for women who don't vote her way. Just put your shit on the table and it either talks or walks.

 
 
 
loki12
2  loki12    2 months ago

256

 
 
 
loki12
3  loki12    2 months ago

Will one of the people who have a butthurt about McConnells rules, Tell me how they are different than the Clinton rules.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @3    2 months ago

Will one of the people who have a butthurt about McConnells rules, Tell me how they are different than the Clinton rules.

Did Clinton have witnesses?

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.1  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    2 months ago

Zero new witnesses. Try harder.  and Mitch hasn't said there would be no witnesses, he said there would be a vote, just exactly like the Clinton proceedings.  Do you have a point?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    2 months ago

Did Clinton have witnesses?

Despite Democrats voting for no witnesses, there were some, though fewer than Republican House managers wanted. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    2 months ago

All the major witnesses in the Clinton impeachment had been deposed prior and their testimony was part of the record.  That is hardly the case now. 

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.4  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 months ago

Thank you for pointing out the abject failure of the house to do it's job,  You do know that there was zero live testimony....right, only 3 depositions conducted by the senate. 

         the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting these videotapes would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial.

looky there, there were no live witnesses.  and NO new witnesses.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @3.1.4    2 months ago

The Trump administration specifically instructed potential witnesses under its jurisdiction not to appear before the House impeachment inquiry. Where the heck have you been? 

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.6  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    2 months ago

It's called executive privileged, where the fuck have you been?  every fucking President since Washington has invoked it, FFS are the democrats in the house that fucking retarded? You go to court to compel. They have their heads firmly up their asses.

This is simply about timing, nothing else, the DNC is trying to rig another election. PERIOD!!!!! 

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.8  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.7    2 months ago

Yawn, CNN whiners can go fuck themselves.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  loki12 @3.1.6    2 months ago
are the democrats in the house that fucking retarded?

the democrats in the house know full well  that they are full of shit. 

their democrat followers are the fuking retards.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @3.1.8    2 months ago

Yawn, CNN whiners can go fuck themselves.

Hey loki12, read a very interesting article last night that totally destroys your claim about executive privilege during the House's impeachment.  Are you ready?

Trump never claimed executive privilege, he ordered his people not to comply with the House subpoenas, but never actually got around to filing executive privilege for them.  There is a specific procedure for it which he never followed.

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.11  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.10    2 months ago

Thank you for proving they are a bunch of whiners,   If no privileged than take them to court, don't whine like a bunch of little bitches.  The house is only trying to tip the democrat primary, they never learn that the voters, well at least most of them aren't as stupid as the members of the house are.  They are rigging another election and are getting caught at it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @3.1.11    2 months ago
If no privileged than take them to court, don't whine like a bunch of little bitches.

Going through court, it would take years after all the appeals.  What would be the purpose then?

The house is only trying to tip the democrat primary, they never learn that the voters, well at least most of them aren't as stupid as the members of the house are.

Most?  Where do you get your numbers from?

Fox News Poll: Record support for Trump impeachment

They are rigging another election and are getting caught at it.

71180264-young-man-in-a-tin-foil-hat-dis

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.13  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.12    2 months ago
Going through court, it would take years after all the appeals.  What would be the purpose then?

On honest and fair process, exactly the opposite of what the democrats are doing, You do realize that was the process for Clinton right? they went to court to compel testimony, that is how grown ups do it, The exact opposite of the whiny bitch's in charge of the house now.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @3.1.13    2 months ago
On honest and fair process, exactly the opposite of what the democrats are doing

Please explain.  In what way have they not been honest and fair?  No conspiracy theories either please.

You do realize that was the process for Clinton right

You do realize that it was done the way the rules state, the rules that the Republicans changed.

they went to court to compel testimony, that is how grown ups do it

They didn't have to, Clinton cooperated with them.  Nixon however tried to pull the whole executive privilege as well.

The exact opposite of the whiny bitch's in charge of the house now.

A sure sign that you have no argument, and know it, is when you start using personal insults.

Ask yourself this, if it truly is a witch trial, hoax, and anything else Trump calls it, why is he refusing to allow his people to testify and prove that?  Why are the Republicans so desperate to try and prevent any witnesses or evidence from being produced?

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.15  dennis smith  replied to  loki12 @3.1.11    2 months ago

For 3 + years the  dems have been screaming for impeachment, now that they have done it, all they are doing is repeating is the same things they have bored the public with since Trump was elected. 

Nothing new from them and now all they can do is blame he Senate.

They need to clean up the mess they have in the House instead of trying to insinuate that the Senate is not doing its job.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.12    2 months ago
Going through court, it would take years after all the appeals.

That's unlikely. The Supreme Court has a pretty solid history of getting through this type of case quickly.

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.17  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.14    2 months ago
why is he refusing to allow his people to testify and prove that? 

Because in America, unlike the democrats russian dream he doesn't have to prove his innocents. and insults don't prove there is no argument, telling people what they think is a sign of no argument.  Go to your home page and search, So you think, you will see a perfect example of that. 

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.18  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.14    2 months ago
They didn't have to, Clinton cooperated with them.

So you have no idea what you are talking about, Clinton went all the way to the supreme court to keep from giving a deposition. You are proving yourself completely lacking in knowledge on this subject. 

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.19  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.14    2 months ago
Why are the Republicans so desperate to try and prevent any witnesses or evidence from being produced?

That is the houses job not the Senate, Why are the worthless shit head democrats not doing their job, you blame the republicans for the democrats failures....which is typical for democrats, They blamed Bush for what a worthless POS Obama was for 8 years why am I not surprised you are blaming republicans for what worthless POS the democrats are.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @3.1.18    2 months ago
So you have no idea what you are talking about. You are proving yourself completely lacking in knowledge on this subject. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.21  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @3.1.17    2 months ago
Because in America, unlike the democrats russian dream he doesn't have to prove his innocents. and insults don't prove there is no argument, telling people what they think is a sign of no argument.

So all the testimony and evidence that show his guilt should  be discounted should be left unchallenged?  Basically that equates to an admission of guilt.

.................

Judge to Suspect:  Sir, the jury has been presented with numerous items indicating that you did indeed commit the act you are accused of.  Do you have any rebuttal?

Suspect to Judge: Your honor, this is all false and my innocence easily provable by numerous witness that have 1st hand knowledge of my actions.

Judge to Suspect: Very well, please call your witnesses to testify.

Suspect to Judge:  I don't wanna, but they'd tell you I'm innocent if I let them.

Judge to Suspect: So have them testify, under oath, to that fact.

Suspect to Judge: No.  Just take my word for it or I will make a windmill give you cancer...

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.22  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.21    2 months ago

So you don't live in the US?  Not testifying is not an admission of guilt. And it's only your biased partisan opinion that it means that. If the evidence proves it.  why testify?  If the evidence has failed, like in this case, why testify?

You do know that democrats and republicans voted against this impeachment right? The house couldn't even convince it's own caucus.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.23  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @3.1.22    2 months ago
So you don't live in the US? 

So you don't read English?

Not testifying is not an admission of guilt.

Never said it was.  Are you making things up again?

If the evidence proves it.  why testify?

Evidence proves his guilt.  Wouldn't you want to rebut it?

If the evidence has failed, like in this case, why testify?

1st, your opinion, nothing else.  2nd, since you just admitted there was evidence for conviction, where is the evidence to show innocence?

You do know that democrats and republicans voted against this impeachment right? 

Whoopdeedo.  Weren't enough of them.

The house couldn't even convince it's own caucus.

News flash for you, THE HOUSE IMPEACHED TRUMP.

Seems like you missed that news point.

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.24  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.23    2 months ago
where is the evidence to show innocence?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....................

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.25  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.23    2 months ago
News flash for you, THE HOUSE IMPEACHED TRUMP.

And the vote against impeachment was bipartisan!!!!!! not all democrats supported it.  FAIL!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @3.1.8    2 months ago

Why so angry?  Why so bitter?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.1.9    2 months ago

That's just WHACK.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.28  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @3.1.25    2 months ago

FAIL!!!!!!!

You seem to have missed the facts, the impeachment succeeded.

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.29  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.28    2 months ago

But not as a bipartisan effort like the witch Nancy said it would, and it only succeeded if he is convicted, you knew that right? putting someone on trial only succeeds if he is convicted, not if he gives you the finger and tells you to go fuck yourself as he walks away free.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.30  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @3.1.29    2 months ago
But not as a bipartisan effort

Repeating....

Whoopdeedo.  Who cares?

and it only succeeded if he is convicted

To quote you, FAIL!!!!!!

He was impeached, he is still impeached, and he will always be impeached.

someone on trial only succeeds if he is convicted

Not convicted, removed from office.  You seem confused about the whole process...

not if he gives you the finger and tells you to go fuck yourself as he walks away free

Again, you seem to lack the understanding of what is going on.  There is no condition, in an impeachment process, that would prevent anyone from "walks away free". 

Don't know what country you're from, but in America the impeachment process is political not criminal.

Also, how do you think the Republican party will look after this Senate fiasco?  The House put together quite a bit of evidence surrounding Trump's actions. 

The Senate's response has been, we don't want to see your evidence, we don't want to see any new evidence, we don't want any witnesses.

Trump's response has been an admission of guilt to obstructing Congress.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.7    2 months ago

WTF are you posting executive order counts for?
WTF does that have to do with impeachment??

WTF does it have to do with claiming executive privilege ????

WTF?????????????????

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.30    2 months ago
He was impeached, he is still impeached, and he will always be impeached.

he was also elected, he is still elected, and will always have been elected.

Maybe even twice!

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.33  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.30    2 months ago
The House put together quite a bit of evidence surrounding Trump's actions. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.34  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.32    2 months ago

Maybe even twice!

Congratulations, once again you pipe in with a statement that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.  Back to the kid's table for you.

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.35  dennis smith  replied to  loki12 @3.1.19    2 months ago

Now the dems are saying it is the Repub Senators who are on trial. All along they said it would be Trump. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.34    2 months ago

if you need an explanation, I have an hour or two to kill attempting to get you up to speed.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4  It Is ME    2 months ago

"It’s Senate Republicans Who Are On Trial"

NOPE !

The "Senate" wasn't set up to "FIX" a "Fucked Up Impeachment"jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif by the House ! jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

It's nice to know Schumer now believes he  engaged in a cover up during the Clinton impeachment.

It astounding seeing the same people who acquitted a President they know was guilty of an actual  felony act self righteous about Trump's impeachment.  It vindicates what Republicans have been saying for years. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.1  loki12  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    2 months ago

Translation of Schitts news conference earlier today: Everybody knows we are a group of incompetent dickheads, so we are going to blame McConnell for not fixing our fuck-ups. Its the DNC way!

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @5.1    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.2  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    2 months ago

So, what I get from reading this is that this impeachment is not about the president or justice. It's about attacking the integrity of the Senate so Democrats can take it back in November. This is being done by submitting bullshit accusations and then screaming "foul" when the Senate doesn't obediently go along with it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago
It's about attacking the integrity of the Senate so Democrats can take it back in November.

Not quite.  It is about attacking Senate Republicans for failing to act as fair and impartial jurors in an impeachment trial as is called for in the Constitution.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.1  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1    2 months ago
fair and impartial jurors

Explain to me in what trial the jury calls witnesses? Spin and spin and spin.......In the Clinton trial there were zero new witnesses like the house is calling for, so you are failing at impartiality but excelling at partisanship.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @6.1.1    2 months ago
Explain to me in what trial the jury calls witnesses?

Afraid to answer the question???  Just another deflection. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Are you claiming that the Senators are not acting as jurors in the impeachment trial????

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.3  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.2    2 months ago

By definition, if they are the jury, then they are jurors. it's right there in my comment. try again, or don't.  

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @6.1.3    2 months ago
By definition, if they are the jury, then they are jurors. it's right there in my comment. try again, or don't. 

Well now you know, in what trial a jury calls witnesses, don't you?  You just answered your own question.

 
 
 
loki12
7  loki12    2 months ago

To all the worthless partisan hacks house members whining like bitches about witnesses, the house in the Clinton trial held an investigation, the used the special prosecutors case. You know like the ignorant fucktards thought Mueller would produce, and then presented evidence in the house,  they didn't pass impeachment articles and then demand the senate investigate, are the house members who are calling for new witnesses really that dense? or just proving themselves to be unamerican fucktards we all know they are?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8  The Magic Eight Ball    2 months ago

nothing good is going to come from this for the [deleted]

they try to impeach a president with no evidence of a crime and then cry like little bitches when the senate does not play along...

very predictable and pathetic of today's left.    like a bunch of 10yr old children who did not get their way.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
dennis smith
8.1.1  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @8.1    2 months ago

Schoolyard language is the best you have?

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @8.1.1    2 months ago

Spare me.  

Speak to loki about the 'schoolyard language'

 
 
 
dennis smith
8.1.3  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.2    2 months ago

If you have a comment to make to Loki, feel free to do so. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @8.1.3    2 months ago

Who asked you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
10  Tessylo    2 months ago

82879317_10216597678277273_5239520523825

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sparty On
JohnRussell


76 visitors