The debasement of the US Senate

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  one month ago  •  118 comments


The debasement of the US Senate
 

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

Chuck Schumer is clamoring for witnesses, documents and in reality a rolling investigation. For weeks Schumer has been in front of news cameras complaining about how the US Senate may conduct the trial of the President. After a one-sided partisan process in the House, democrats are worried that their rush to impeachment will be quickly dismissed in the Senate. Therefore the circus is now being transported to the more distinguished chamber.

Schumer has refused to negotiate with the Senate leader on the rules and now seeks to hijack the trial and control it in the same manner that Adam Schiff controlled the House proceedings. We can expect the partisan warfare to begin within a few hours. All of the norms of decency shall be upended and in the end the country will continue to be divided.



mcconnellmitch_011320gn_lead.jpg?itok=pQ






Stay tuned as the impeachment supported by only one party moves to a trial.



Article is Locked


 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Stand by for the pending bluster & Caterwauling to begin.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

For the few political junkies that will binge on this clown show from gavel to gavel, it should be an interesting display of how much the Democrats are out of touch with the majority of the American people. But the vast majority of the people are totally bored by the antics of the self destructive Dems, and their attempts to unseat a duly elected president for purely political reasons

Shitshead Schumer can cry and whine all day long, but the socialists no longer control the show.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    one month ago

How many press briefings & interviews & statements does it take for democrats to pound home their narrative?  The House managers are out in front of cameras right now calling the yet-to-be-held trial "rigged."

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

It already started - Schiff and Nadler are whining and lying to the press as I type this comment.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.2    one month ago

Maybe we can drag them from the camera's by 1PM

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

That's exactly what the gop/republicans are doing, debasing the Senate.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.3    one month ago

Why? Because they have rules?  Didn't democrats tell us that the House could make it's own rules? or that Pelosi could do whatever she wants?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    one month ago
All of the norms of decency shall be upended

Don't badmouth Trump and Mitch McConnell like that. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

That was a really detailed response. What's wrong John, can't democrats defend their case?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

Some people on this forum will go back and forth, making 20 or 30 comments on every one of these seeds about Trump. I dont do that. 

We all know what Trump is and what he did. He is guilty as hell.  The issue is "what will the Republicans do about it?" .  It seems that the answer to that question is "nothing". 

So the matter of "decency" needs to be applied to the Trumpsters in the Senate and in the public.  Gerald Nadler made a couple very striking points about 10 minutes ago.  Paraphrasing him, he said a "trial" without witnesses and documents (evidence) is not a trial. 

The "decent" thing to do would be to have an actual trial. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one month ago
He is guilty as hell. 

Of what?


So the matter of "decency" needs to be applied to the Trumpsters in the Senate and in the public. 

No, John, I'm afraid the onus of incivility remains, as always, on progressives


 Paraphrasing him, he said a "trial" without witnesses and documents (evidence) is not a trial. 

And who said there won't be witnesses?  Don't Senate members get to vote on that?  For that matter, didn't the House call it's witnesses?


The "decent" thing to do would be to have an actual trial. 

The decent thing is for democrats to present their evidence that they should have assembled before writing up Articles of impeachment and not to destroy every vestige of decorum in both houses of congress simply beause they hate Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one month ago

Every relevant witness who is requested by either side should be subpoenaed. All relevant documents should be produced by the defendant. That is the floor, not the ceiling, of "decency". 

McConnell is fighting to have the record from the House hearings on impeachment disallowed and not admitted into the Senate proceeding.  Does that sound like decency? 

By keeping the question of a vote on witnesses and evidence until AFTER the senators question period (the point of the trial when senators are allowed to submit questions to the impeachment managers)   McConnell wants to prevent any senators from asking questions based on what they hear from any witnesses , or based on what they see in the documents. 

This is not a trial, ..... to mimic Trump's language, this is a hoax. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    one month ago
Every relevant witness who is requested by either side should be subpoenaed.

That was the job of the House. Why didn't they call all the witnesses they wanted when they were doing their inquiry?   When you go to trial, the investigation has to be complete. Why not go back and finish it?   McConnell has made that offer.

You don't get to have an ongoing investigation. You wrote Articles of Impeachment. Defend it if you can!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one month ago

They should have made their case in the House investigations.

No more bites at the "witness and documents" apple.

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1.6  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    one month ago

"...in reality a rolling investigation."

I like that phrase. it is the essence of the House's scattershot package, dumped on the Senate, to be added to the daily, election-cycle-style, metered 'bombshell revelations'. No matter how big it gets, how long it goes on, it's all tumbleweed.

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.7  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    one month ago

The Senate has heard testimony from witnesses at every trial it has completed in its 231-year history. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/09/senate-has-conducted-15-impeachment-trials-it-heard-witnesses-every-one/

Why do you think it should be different now ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.7    one month ago

Any witness that the House has called in their inquiry should be open to being called by the Senate. The House based their conclusions on those witnesses. It would seem to me that the Senate will vote for witnesses. The vote hasn't even been taken. Why all the drum beating now?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

It's your party that's being shamed, not the Republicans. The Dems devious and dishonest actions have assured Trump's reelection, and probable loss of the House.

If you think it's bad now, wait a few weeks. The Democrats "leaders" and all their supporters, sympathizers, and sycophants, are in for a very bad summer and disastrous autumn election, as Barr and Durham continue their work.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    one month ago
The Dems devious and dishonest actions have assured Trump's reelection, and probable loss of the House.

They call the President's right to claim "executive privilege" an "obstruction of congress". You know that Article is dead on arrival!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

A related story:

Washington •  Sen. Mitt Romney’s approval among Republicans and independents appears to be slipping as he heads into the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, where the Utah Republican is  breaking with the president and GOP leaders by calling for at least one witness, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, to testify .

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/01/17/poll-sen-mitt-romneys/

2BYJ7IYF6BCTBD5KQL7334EGY4.jpg

Utah is not Massachusetts

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    one month ago
Washington •  Sen. Mitt Romney’s approval among Republicans and independents appears to be slipping as he heads into the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, where the Utah Republican is  breaking with the president and GOP leaders by calling for at least one witness, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, to testify .

Other than your own mind, where did that stuff about Romney's approval 'slipping' come from? It sure as hell isn't mentioned in the link your posted. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @3.1    one month ago

Here you go.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/01/17/poll-sen-mitt-romneys/

A Morning Consult poll  shows an 18 percent drop of Romney’s approval rating among Republicans in the last four months of 2019 as compared to the quarter before that . And 9% of independents swung to disapproving of Romney quarter over quarter, the poll found.

A majority of Utah Republicans still back Romney — 57% in the last four months of 2019 — but that’s down from 65% the prior quarter.

Romney, a freshman, got a bump with Democrats late last year, with 46% of them approving of him in the fourth quarter compared to 42% the months before.

Overall, 48% of Utah voters support Romney’s job performance compared to 38% who disapprove. Some 14% weren’t sure.

Since you couldn't bother to read the link Vic posted. Hint- it isn't Democrats that are going to reelect Romney to his seat. He is burning bridges with Republicans and Independents in UT. 

Expect those numbers to go down even further if he continues to side with Democrats during the impeachment process. 

Romney is still butt sore over losing his shot at the White House. Somewhere in the back of his head is the inkling that if Trump is impeached, then Romney will be become the nominee and savior of the Republican Party. Ignoring the fact that he will be even more unelectable than his last presidential run.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    one month ago
Since you couldn't bother to read the link Vic posted.

I DID read Vic's link. Here it is:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/01/07/sen-mitt-romney-says/

Since you are answering for Vic, perhaps you can explain why he posted the link for another article in a statement in the poll article. I'll wait...

 
 
 
JBB
4  JBB    one month ago

69%, basically seven of ten, Americans want the actual witnesses to testify and for all currently available evidence to be presented because that is what is expected in a fair trial. 

Trump and the majority of the republicans in Congress do not. If McConnell turns Trump's trial in the Senate into the sham he proposes then I expect the 2020 election will be a historic landslide in the Democrat's favor. If the gop goes against The People it is at its peril.

https://amp-axios-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.axios.com/2018-midterm-elections-democrats-won-house-biggest-margin-a56a1049-8823-4667-8d81-2c67ef3f36f4.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15795966058886&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.axios.com%2F2018-midterm-elections-democrats-won-house-biggest-margin-a56a1049-8823-4667-8d81-2c67ef3f36f4.html

Trump may have won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote by 3%. That is not mathematically possible should he lose by five or ten percent which seems more and more likely. The Democrats won the 2018 midterm popular Congressional vote by eight percent!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4    one month ago
69%, basically seven of ten, Americans want the actual witnesses to testify

Didn't they follow the House Inquiry?

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

You mean the Congressional inquiry Trump obstructed? The one where The President of the United States failed to make any defense? The one where the actual witnesses were not allowed to testify or refused to testify? That initial inquiry? 

Like a grand jury indictment that is a starting point. Tha American People are asking, nay DEMANDING, that all the pertinate evidence be presented and that all the actual witnesses be forced to fully and truthfully be presented for them and the US Senate to decide. 

Anything less is a sham. People won't stand for it. Trust!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4.1.1    one month ago
You mean the Congressional inquiry Trump obstructed?

All presidents are entitled to claim executive privilege. That is not obstruction. That is a matter for the Court to decide.


Tha American People are DEMANDING that all the evidence be presented and that all the witnesses be forced to fully and truthfully be be presented for them and the US Senate to decide. 

And the prosecution, which wrote up Articles of Impeachment must now present it's evidence!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @4.1.1    one month ago

Neither Trump nor any of his defenders were allowed to testify in the House hearings.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @4.1.1    one month ago
all the pertinate evidence be presented and that all the actual witnesses be forced to fully and truthfully be presented for them and the US Senate to decide. 

And if that testimony and evidence would exonerate Trump, would that be OK with you...because that's what would happen.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.4    one month ago

All relevant evidence should be heard, even if it exonerates Trump. 

However, it is a fair assumption to conclude that if any actual evidence of Trump's innocence existed we would have heard it .  If there was any actual evidence of his innocence, Trump would have tweeted it out a thousand times already. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.5    one month ago
All relevant evidence should be heard, even if it exonerates Trump.  However, it is a fair assumption to conclude that if any actual evidence of Trump's innocence existed we would have heard it .  If there was any actual evidence of his innocence, Trump would have tweeted it out a thousand times already. 

Then it sounds like the House has an iron clad case. Why not simply present it?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Even now as Schumer is speaking for the second time this morning, democrats are using their allies in the media to exceed their fair share of debate time.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    one month ago

It's the "keep screaming at the sky" strategy.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @5.1    one month ago

Why do you say something so obviously silly?   The House Democrats produced a 144 page brief that is very very specific about Trump's wrongdoing in Ukraine.  Under what possible theory is that "screaming at the sky"? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @5.1    one month ago

They are going to be doing a lot of that!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    one month ago
The House Democrats produced a 144 page brief

The Bill Clinton report was 440 pages long, not that it matters. It's substance that counts. Defend your claims!

You started with the "Quid pro quo" then went to "bribery" and now you are submitting the gibberish of "abuse of power" and the ridiculous "obstruction of congress."

Good luck

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    one month ago
Why do you say something so obviously silly?

Why do you say something so obviously silly?

The House Democrats produced a 144 page brief that is very very specific about Trump's wrongdoing in Ukraine.

I don't care if it's 10,000 pages long. 10,000 pages of bullshit is still bullshit.

Under what possible theory is that "screaming at the sky"? 

By that, I mean that Schumer thinks that if he whines nonsense at the compliant news media for an hour, it will have some impact. The fact is it will have no more impact than screaming at the sky.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.4    one month ago
I don't care if it's 10,000 pages long. 10,000 pages of bullshit is still bullshit.

What makes you think it is bullshit? 

I am amazed that you are ever able to make some people here think you are not all in as a Trump die hard supporter. It's baffling. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    one month ago
What makes you think it is bullshit? 

The people who testified in the House did not have firsthand, personal knowledge of the things they testified about. That would never be allowed in a real court hearing.

There is ample evidence that the president was telling people he did not want a quid pro quo situation regarding Ukraine. The House witch hunters ignored that or disregarded it.

The president of Ukraine, who was personally involved, has said he felt no pressure from the president and wasn't even aware of aid being withheld, particularly because of anything Biden related. That also has been ignored or disregarded by House witch hunters. That should have ended the inquiry, but it didn't.

The House hasn't even made a convincing case that even if all the accusations are true, they constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, or that they justify removal as opposed to something like voting him out, censure, or some other response.

The House has rejected the idea that the courts resolve any disputes between the legislative and executive branch and instead of rushed ahead to accuse the president of obstructing their business.

That, collectively, makes this all bullshit.

I am amazed that you are ever able to make some people here think you are not all in as a Trump die hard supporter.

I don't really give a shit what people believe. It's clear that some people will believe whatever they want to about me because it makes them feel better about themselves. That's their failing, not mine.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.6    one month ago
The people who testified in the House did not have firsthand, personal knowledge of the things they testified about. That would never be allowed in a real court hearing.

There is ample evidence that the president was telling people he did not want a quid pro quo situation regarding Ukraine. The House witch hunters ignored that or disregarded it.

The president of Ukraine, who was personally involved, has said he felt no pressure from the president and wasn't even aware of aid being withheld, particularly because of anything Biden related. That also has been ignored or disregarded by House witch hunters. That should have ended the inquiry, but it didn't.

The House hasn't even made a convincing case that even if all the accusations are true, they constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, or that they justify removal as opposed to something like voting him out, censure, or some other response.

The House has rejected the idea that the courts resolve any disputes between the legislative and executive branch and instead of rushed ahead to accuse the president of obstructing their business.

That, collectively, makes this all bullshit.

Utter nonsense. Sondland testified that "everyone" knew there was a quid pro quo.  Did he hallucinate this "knowing" or was it conveyed to him?  Ms Hill testified that she was at a meeting where John Bolton described the Ukraine situation involving Giuliani as a "drug deal".  One of the witnesses testified that he overheard Trump telling Sondland about the need to have Zelensky announce an investigation. 

None of that is hearsay. 

There is ample evidence that the president was telling people he did not want a quid pro quo situation regarding Ukraine. The House witch hunters ignored that or disregarded it.

This is probably the silliest defense of Trump. He said this to Sondland AFTER he knew he had been caught !  

Do you think people are idiots? Trump does, maybe as a loyal fan of his you do too. 

The president of Ukraine, who was personally involved, has said he felt no pressure from the president and wasn't even aware of aid being withheld, particularly because of anything Biden related.

Good God man, what do you expect him to say? The aid to his country is still dependent on Trump's whims.

When one of the courtiers testifies against the king he gets thrown in the dungeon or has his head cut off. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.7    one month ago
Sondland testified that "everyone" knew there was a quid pro quo.

That is the very definition of hearsay. An out of court statement made to prove the truth of the matter asserted. He has no business testifying about what other people "know." Rather, let people in a position to know testify what they knew and how they knew it, not what they believed. If they don't have personal knowledge, their testimony is inadmissible - and with good reason: It's unreliable.

Good God man, what do you expect him to say? The aid to his country is still dependent on Trump's whims.

So, you attack the integrity of the president of Ukraine based only on your disdain of Trump, and not because you have knowledge. More proof that it's all bullshit. Your emotions are not probative, fair evidence.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.8    one month ago
So, you attack the integrity of the president of Ukraine based only on your disdain of Trump, and not because you have knowledge. More proof that it's all bullshit.

The Ukrainians were put into a horrible position by Trump. They could either agree to a sham investigation of Joe Biden, or risk not getting money they desperately needed. 

They STILL need the money , in the future. As long as Trump has a say so over that money , no one in the Ukrainian government will speak out against Trump.  And no one in their right mind would expect them to. 

When prisoners of war, under duress, says their captors are treating them well,  do you say they have no integrity?  lol. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.9    one month ago
The Ukrainians were put into a horrible position by Trump. They could either agree to a sham investigation of Joe Biden, or risk not getting money they desperately needed. 

NO they weren't. Even those across the ocean know, when the "U.S. Congress" sets a value that MUST be distributed at a certain time frame, no one can stop it. 

Trump sent the money … within the time frame set by Congress.

If he waited to send the Money Value "AFTER" the time frame set by congress, you'd have an argument.

So .... what's this "Lefty Shit" all about again ?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.6    one month ago
The people who testified in the House did not have firsthand, personal knowledge of the things they testified about.

That's false. 

That would never be allowed in a real court hearing.

That's false too. There are dozens of exceptions to the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Some of which is 'privilege not to testify, stubborn refusal to testify, and lack of memory'

There is ample evidence that the president was telling people he did not want a quid pro quo situation regarding Ukraine. The House witch hunters ignored that or disregarded it.

ONE person testified to that and then he said this:

Skip to 2:03 if you must. 

The president of Ukraine, who was personally involved, has said he felt no pressure from the president and wasn't even aware of aid being withheld, particularly because of anything Biden related. That also has been ignored or disregarded by House witch hunters. That should have ended the inquiry, but it didn't.

It hasn't been ignored, it's been taken with a grain of salt because Zelensky had his nuts in a vice when he said it. 

The House hasn't even made a convincing case that even if all the accusations are true, they constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, or that they justify removal as opposed to something like voting him out, censure, or some other response.

On the contrary, they filled a report that does just that. It's quite telling that NOTHING in Trump's filing to the Senate deny the underlying facts of that report. 

The House has rejected the idea that the courts resolve any disputes between the legislative and executive branch and instead of rushed ahead to accuse the president of obstructing their business.

False. The House is in litigation right now. 

That, collectively, makes this all bullshit.

That 'collectively' is bullshit. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.9    one month ago

That is 100% your own speculation. None of it is factual evidence and nothing upon which we should remove the leader of the country from his position. The idea that anyone would want to make such a profound and radical move based on such flimsy evidence is just beyond irresponsible.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @5.1.11    one month ago

Everything you just wrote is bullshit.

 
 
 
Dulay
6  Dulay    one month ago
Schumer has refused to negotiate with the Senate leader on the rules

What evidence do you have of that claim Vic? Schumer sent a letter to McConnell and heard not a word back and was not given a copy of the Resolution until last night. The facts point to McConnell refusing to negotiate with Schumer. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @6    one month ago
The facts point to McConnell refusing to negotiate with Schumer. 

He doesn't have to. Each house sets its own rules. Did Schiff negotiate the rules for the House inquiry?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    one month ago
"The House chose this road. It is their duty to investigate. It's their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election. As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House’s obligation to, quote, 'build an ironclad case to act.'
"If they fail, they fail. It is not the Senate’s job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to guilty. That would hardly be impartial justice."

— Sen. McConnell

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    one month ago
He doesn't have to.
Each house sets its own rules.

Yet Vic claimed that it was Schumer who refused to negotiate. 

Did Schiff negotiate the rules for the House inquiry?

Schiff didn't have anything to do with writing the House rules. That was the House Rules Committee, which conducted a mark up and voted on passage. 

BTW, the rules used during the House Intel Inquiry are the SAME rules passed by the GOP and hold for EVERY House investigation and they were followed to the letter. Get educated. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    one month ago

Senate Minority Leader  Charles Schumer  (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday dismissed out of hand a proposal from Senate Majority Leader  Mitch McConnell  (R-Ky.) to consider the question of additional witnesses and documents later in  President Trump ’s impeachment trial.

thehill.com/homenews/senate/474972-schumer-rejects-mcconnell-plan-to-delay-vote-on-impeachment-witnesses

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.1    one month ago

“We haven’t ruled out witnesses. We’ve said let’s handle this case just like we did with President Clinton. Fair is fair.”

"The Senate has a unanimous bipartisan precedent for when to handle mid-trial questions such as witnesses — in the middle of the trial," McConnell said on Monday. "That was good enough for President Clinton, so it ought to be good enough for President Trump. Fair is fair."

I guess what McConnell NOW means by 'just like' and  'Fair is Fair' is 'I changed the rules for Trump and didn't negotiate with the minority.'

BTW, I note that you haven't offered any evidence for your comment. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  Tessylo    one month ago

Carl Bernstein has a new nickname for Moscow Mitch, it's now Midnight Mitch.

I like it!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @7    one month ago

No name calling here.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago

Tell that to Carl Bernstein.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
8  Tacos!    one month ago

Past presidents have faced impeachments after long and thorough investigations. There was such an investigation of Trump, but after two years, the Democrats looked at it and still couldn't justify impeachment. So, they jumped on the first thing to come along after that, and knowing that a real investigation again wouldn't justify impeachment, they said "screw it" and pushed it through anyway. It's clear BS.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @8    one month ago

And if they can they will impeach him again

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    one month ago
And if they can they will impeach him again

As new evidence has emerged and any related testimony will be squashed (and rightfully so given they are outside the scope of the current articles), and as further evidence that may come to light, the House has a duty to investigate accordingly. If it bears bringing additional and separate articles, so be it.

This is not, nor should it ever be, a one-off exercise. If any administration conducts themselves in a manner that warrants investigation, the last excuse for derailing those investigations should be previous acquittals or the calendar, particularly when the accusations go to protecting the integrity of our electoral process.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.1    one month ago
As new evidence has emerged

That's what you did to Kavanaugh. No, you don't get to have a rolling investigation. Make your case!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.2    one month ago

Your conclusion is absurd. 

Before a murder trial all the evidence is collected and organized and put in exhibits, and the witness list is composed and followed. 

Nonetheless, should, after the trial has formally opened, new evidence or new witnesses are uncovered they are allowed in the murder trial.  The judge doesnt say to the prosecutors  "you should have found the murder weapon before you filed charges". 

Take Parnas for example. He wasn't talking before, now he is. If he has relevant testimony he should be heard at the impeachment, period. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.2    one month ago
No, you don't get to have a rolling investigation

If you reread the post, you will see we are in agreement.

The articles of impeachment currently before the Senate consider two counts with the supporting testimony. That is all the Senate is deliberating upon, per the Constitution. I am suggesting if new evidence emerges separate from these proceedings (re: Parnas), the House has a duty to investigate and bring additional articles should the evidence warrant.

Not a rolling investigation, but a separate one. It is their responsibility, again per the Constitution.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    one month ago
Before a murder trial all the evidence is collected and organized and put in exhibits, and the witness list is composed and followed. 

Right.


Nonetheless, should, after the trial has formally opened, new evidence or new witnesses are uncovered they are allowed in the murder trial.

But this is another political trial. Remember Deborah Ramirez?  She came forward late and lied about Kavanaugh. There were no consequences for her or Avenatti. And what of Christine Blasey Ford?  It turns out she couldn't prove her allegations. It was a staedy drip, drip, drip of politically motivated false accusations. We saw this movie before.



Take Parnas for example. 

He happens to be my favorite witness!


If he has relevant testimony he should be heard at the impeachment, period.

Let us call him. If it is proven that he is lying I think we should then file an ethics complaint against Pelosi, Schiff and Schumer

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.4    one month ago
I am suggesting if new evidence emerges separate from these proceedings (re: Parnas), the House has a duty to investigate and bring additional articles should the evidence warrant.

Fine and if we find that Parnas is lying his ass off to get a lighter sentence, then what?   What should the consequences be?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.4    one month ago
If it is proven that he is lying I think we should then file an ethics complaint against Pelosi, Schiff and Schumer

The Republicans are potentially putting themselves into a dire and potentially disastrous position.  If they unfairly railroad this impeachment trial without allowing evidence and down the road, in a month or two or six, evidence is produced which proves Trump's guilt (such as a Bolton interview) it will be too late for the Republican senators who will be held responsible for Trump getting off as a guilty man. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.1    one month ago
As new evidence has emerged

What evidence is that? You're just hoping and praying that a smoking gun or bombshell of evidence will magically appear as the days go on. It's not going to happen.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.7    one month ago
evidence is produced which proves Trump's guilt (such as a Bolton interview)

I guess that democrats should have called for Bolton's testimony

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.9    one month ago

Trump blocked every attempt to call certain people (everyone who could prove his guilt). The ones that DID testify to the House are the ones who did so anyway, despite Trump's objections. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.10    one month ago
Trump blocked every attempt to call certain people

A President has the right to claim executive privilege. All of them!

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.12  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.6    one month ago
then what? 

Then additional articles are not brought forward. Why the fear in having the truth come to light?  The procedures have served us well since our inception and despite the partisan hyperbole oozing from both sides, the system is working as outlined, ugly as it is today. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.12    one month ago
Then additional articles are not brought forward.

I'm sorry, that's not good enough. If the shoe were on the other foot, you wouldn't appreciate false allegations suddenly being made at the time of trial. There needs to be consequences.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.11    one month ago
Trump blocked every attempt to call certain people
A President has the right to claim executive privilege. All of them!

Yeah, but when a pathological liar who is ethically non-existent wants to keep witnesses from speaking we justifiably think he is hiding something.  Period. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.15  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.13    one month ago
I'm sorry, that's not good enough

If it's good enough as outlined in our Constitution, it is good enough for me, but that is just me. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.14    one month ago
Yeah, but when a pathological liar who is ethically non-existent wants to keep witnesses from speaking we justifiably think he is hiding something.  Period.

Ya, We know John, but a fair process applies to him too. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.16    one month ago

Vic, if Trump is innocent, why hasnt he tweeted out something of substance that shows his innocence? The whistleblower information came out 4 months ago. In those 4 months Trump has said nothing that demonstrates he is not guilty, and he has tweeted hundreds of times in that span. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.15    one month ago
If it's good enough as outlined in our Constitution

I get concerned on those unique occasions when progressives invoke the Constitution. I keep remembering the late 60's when the then young progressives were out burning the American flag. Now suddenly you want to limit remedies for misconduct to something that deals with a mere failure to provide evidence. Perjury is supposed to be a serious offense. I guess it only applies to somebody associated with Donald Trump.
Parnas has been all over the news making the most incredible accusations, not only against the President that you hate, but against our Attorney General. If he is called as a witness and is found to be a liar, I can't think of what punishment would be satisfactory. How many people have seen Parnas on CNN or MSNBC and beleve what he said is documentary?    What can rectify that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.19  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.17    one month ago
Vic, if Trump is innocent, why hasnt he tweeted out something of substance that shows his innocence?

It dosen't work that way!!!! You don't prove your innocence - your accusers must prove guilt!!!


The whistleblower information came out 4 months ago.

The transcript of the conversation (which was a private one between two leaders) was released instantly!

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.20  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.18    one month ago
What can rectify that?

The truth coming to light, under the requirements and constraints as outlined. Let us determine the truth under those requirements and let the ramifications if he lies under oath proceed accordingly.

One's rush to judgement always blurs one's perspective.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.20    one month ago
The truth coming to light, under the requirements and constraints as outlined. Let us determine the truth under those requirements and let the ramifications if he has indeed lied under oath proceed accordingly.

Then present your case, if you have one. Digging for new info indicates that you don't.

Pelosi said it was "iron clad."

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.22  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.21    one month ago
Pelosi said it was "iron clad."

Pencil Neck has had damming info on Trump since his election.

Wonder where that went.....since He and Pelosi and Chucky are wanting the Senate to find what they failed to produce.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.23  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.22    one month ago
Pencil Neck has had damming info on Trump since his elections.

He should have been censured for that. Pelosi is impressed with him - ever since he impeached two Judges:

"Only  15 federal judges  in U.S. history have been impeached, and Schiff played a key role in two of those cases."

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/10/07/rep-adam-schiff-trumps-nemesis-is-2-0-so-far-on-impeachment/


No doubt about it, Schiff is a talented legal mind - in the style of Weissmann and Avenatti.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.24  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.23    one month ago
No doubt about it, Schiff is a talented legal mind - in the style of Weissmann and Avenatti.

McCarthyism ? jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.25  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.24    one month ago

McCarthy No.....Roy Cohn Yes!

87952966-9cd5-3e7f-acce-ff66994ab24e

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.26  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.21    one month ago
Then present your case,

My case, Vic, lies only in having trust in the system as outlined in the Constitution. If only our leaders and their toadies would remember that that is where the strength of our republic lies and not in their self-serving agendas.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.27  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.26    one month ago
My case, Vic, lies only in having trust in the system as outlined in the Constitution.

It seems that all members of congress have themselves tightly wrapped in the Constitution. Thus, we can sit back and watch it unfold!

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.28  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.27    one month ago
we can sit back and watch it unfold!

Agreed.

And despite any preconceived motivation in it's outcome or construct, we should all take solace in seeing the system working as intended. Fascinating in it's uniquely American roots and a valuable civics lesson if nothing else.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.29  It Is ME  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.26    one month ago
My case, Vic, lies only in having trust in the system as outlined in the Constitution.

But....the "Constitution" is ….. living....Breathing....changeable based on circumstances at a whim !

Which are you looking at ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.30  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.28    one month ago
we should all take solace in seeing the system working as intended.

That's funny.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.31  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.25    one month ago

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.32  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.31    one month ago

I wonder what the founders would have thought of the three impeachments?

I'm sure they would have wanted the one that never took place. The one where Nixon asked Goldwater how many votes he could count on in the Senate. Goldwater said "You only have 4 votes and I'm not one of them."  Nixon then resigned.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.33  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.32    one month ago

BTW, according to Laura Ingraham, that was Pat Cipollone's first time speaking before the cameras - and he kicked ass!

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.34  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.32    one month ago

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

Clinton shoulda just said: "Ya...I had sex with that women" in the peoples house. Senate didn't impeach him anyway, even though he lied to Feds. about the "Sex". His personal Lisc. faltered for it, but his "Presidency remained as always !

That "Luck" doesn't happen for EVERYONE, so it seems. jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.35  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.34    one month ago
That "Luck" doesn't happen for EVERYONE, so it seems.

He also had the press on his side. Trump obviously does not.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.36  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.35    one month ago
He also had the press on his side.

Yippers !

Trumps 1999 exploratory committee for his "Reform Party Presidential Run", wasn't looked at favorably by the Press then either. His 2016 Presidential WIN, Flipped their helmets into space ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif  

Don't hurt the feelings of the Press. They'll try and destroy you for it, even if your Mother Theresa.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.37  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.25    one month ago

Roy Cohn, what a repulsive excuse for a human being.  

 
 
 
bugsy
8.1.38  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.17    one month ago
In those 4 months Trump has said nothing that demonstrates he is not guilty, and he has tweeted hundreds of times in that span. 

He doesn't have to demonstrate anything. It is the democrats responsibility to prove he is guilty, and as of now, they have failed.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @8    one month ago

Nixon's AG Elliot Richardson and Clinton's AG Janet Reno BOTH appointed Independent Counsel to investigate actions by the presidents they served. 

The ICIG AND CIA General Counsel Courtney Elwood filed criminal referrals to the DOJ BEFORE the whistleblower complaint was released. Barr blew them off without an investigation.

The House had NO CHOICE but to instigate their own investigation.

Trying to pretend that it wasn't a 'real' investigation is obtuse and clear BS. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @8.2    one month ago
Trying to pretend that it wasn't a 'real' investigation is obtuse and clear BS

Trying to pretend that it was a 'real' investigation is obtuse and clear BS

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.1    one month ago
Trying to pretend that it was a 'real' investigation is obtuse and clear BS

I'm not pretending, I have cogent reasons to argue that it is a real investigation. 

You must believe that the Benghazi investigation by Trey Gowdy wasn't real either Tacos!. Trey followed the same rules that Schiff did. Behind closed doors depositions without Obama's lawyers [or Clinton's] being allowed to participate. 

The Judiciary Committee invited Trump's lawyers to participate in their hearings. They petulantly refused.

It was a 'real' investigation. 

 
 
 
loki12
8.2.3  loki12  replied to  Dulay @8.2    one month ago
Nixon's AG Elliot Richardson and Clinton's AG Janet Reno BOTH appointed Independent Counsel to investigate actions by the presidents they served. 

And so did trumps, we can't help if Mueller blew up in the retarded lefts faces.   Fail by the house and the low functioning morons that elected those reps.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.4  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @8.2.3    one month ago
And so did trumps

No he didn't. Barr didn't even investigate the criminal referrals himself. 

FAIL.

 
 
 
loki12
8.2.5  loki12  replied to  Dulay @8.2.4    one month ago

My wrong little friend, who do you think Mueller was?  

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.6  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @8.2.5    one month ago
My wrong little friend,

Show respect for members by using their screen name loki. 

who do you think Mueller was? 

Mueller was the guy, who unlike Starr had a limited mandate covering his investigation. Even if Mueller's investigation was still open, he would NOT have the authority to investigate Trump's actions with Ukraine. 

 
 
 
loki12
8.2.7  loki12  replied to  Dulay @8.2.6    one month ago

So a special prosecutor appointed by the trump AG, thanks for confirming, also as for this.

     had a limited mandate covering his investigation. Even if Mueller's investigation was still open, he would NOT have the authority to investigate Trump's actions with Ukraine. 

Complete unadulterated bullshit.........Just ask Manafort, His conviction was do to work in Ukraine, so you are wrong.

And Cohen had nothing to do with Russia, Limited my ass.  That is nothing but a talking point.

Mueller was also mandated to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." The probe included a  criminal investigation  which looked into potential  obstruction of justice  charges against Trump and members of his campaign or his administration. [8]

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.8  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @8.2.7    one month ago
Complete unadulterated bullshit.........Just ask Manafort, His conviction was do to work in Ukraine, so you are wrong.

Only someone who is utterly clueless about Mueller's mandate would state that. In FACT, a Judge ruled that Manafort's prosecution was well within Mueller's mandate. Manafort was convicted on bank and tax violations, NOT on his work for Ukraine. FACTS MATTER. 

And Cohen had nothing to do with Russia, Limited my ass.  That is nothing but a talking point.

Cohen wasn't prosecuted by Mueller. Cohen was investigated by the SDNY, NOT Mueller. Opps...

So both of you 'arguments' are uninformed. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @8.2.8    one month ago
Cohen was investigated by the SDNY, NOT Mueller. Opps.

Of course Mueller investigated Cohen.  He just turned the prosecution over to the SDNY because it was small potatoes. Opps indeed.

FACTS MATTER.

 
 
 
loki12
8.2.10  loki12  replied to  Dulay @8.2.8    one month ago
Only someone who is utterly clueless about Mueller's mandate would state that.

That would be you,

Mueller was also mandated to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." 

 
 
 
loki12
8.2.11  loki12  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.9    one month ago
FACTS MATTER.

Not to partisan hacks who are never right and simply pushing an agenda. Some are bound and determined to show how ignorant they are,

On April 9, 2018, based on a referral to  United States District Court for the Southern District of New York  (SDNY) from the special counsel, 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @8.2.10    one month ago

No he was not

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @8.2.2    one month ago
I have cogent reasons to argue that it is a real investigation.

No, you don’t. All you have is fantasy.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
9  Nerm_L    one month ago

Chuck Schumer has violated his oath of impartiality.  Schumer should be dismissed from the Senate trial and expelled from the chamber.

Chuck Schumer is trying to engage in New York politics; this has nothing to do with impeachment.  The 2020 election favors Democrats in the Senate since 22 Republican seats are up for election while Democrats only have 12 seats up for election.  Democrats are using the impeachment trial to try to gain control of the Senate.  That's not surprising since upcoming redistricting does not favor Democrats retaining control of the House in 2022.

Democrats have been engaged in dirty politics from the beginning.  And Democrats are in too far to stop now.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @9    one month ago
Democrats have been engaged in dirty politics from the beginning. 

The beginning goes way back to the 2016 election.


 Schumer should be dismissed from the Senate trial and expelled from the chamber.

I second that motion!

 
 
 
Ender
9.2  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @9    one month ago

And McConnell Hasn't?

Amazes me when people see something only on one side of the isle. Even when their own admit it. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
10  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

I see the honorable Bret Baier and the stylish Martha MacCallum have arrived:  It's time for the Senate Leader to speak!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
11  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

What is the reason for the recess?  Just a little surprised.

 
 
 
It Is ME
12  It Is ME    one month ago

"Crying Chuck" is trying to force the "Senate" to do what the "House" shoulda done. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

Like calling REAL witnesses. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

According to "Pencil Neck Schifty Schiff".....he's had "Documents" against Trump since January 2017, so that's a Crap Point for "Crying Chucky" to bring up. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

It's a time of reckoning for one "never Trumper."

Romney dismisses Dem concerns over Trump impeachment trial rules: "Not an issue of significance"

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/479182-romney-dismisses-dems-concerns-over-trial-rules-not-an-issue-of-significance


EO0vxKaXsAEr4M1?format=jpg&name=small

Ya, your'e getting it Mitt!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Be back in a few

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

It is now 12:20 PM EST and Schumer is still having his amendments shot down. I believe they are into their 8th. At some ponit they will have to end if for no other reason tha let the Chief Justice get some rest before his duties before the SCOTUS tom.

So, I close here until tom

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Donald J. Trump fan 1
Freefaller


28 visitors