The debasement of the US Senate
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.
Stay tuned as the impeachment supported by only one party moves to a trial.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
Stand by for the pending bluster & Caterwauling to begin.
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.
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."
It already started - Schiff and Nadler are whining and lying to the press as I type this comment.
Maybe we can drag them from the camera's by 1PM
That's exactly what the gop/republicans are doing, debasing the Senate.
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?
Don't badmouth Trump and Mitch McConnell like that.
That was a really detailed response. What's wrong John, can't democrats defend their case?
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.
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.
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.
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!
They should have made their case in the House investigations.
No more bites at the "witness and documents" apple.
"...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.
The Senate has heard testimony from witnesses at every trial it has completed in its 231-year history.
Why do you think it should be different now ?
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?
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.
They call the President's right to claim "executive privilege" an "obstruction of congress". You know that Article is dead on arrival!
A related story:
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-sltrib.s3.amazonaws.com/public/2BYJ7IYF6BCTBD5KQL7334EGY4.jpg)
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 .
Utah is not Massachusetts
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.
Here you go.
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.
I DID read Vic's link. Here it is:
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...
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.
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!
Didn't they follow the House Inquiry?
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!
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!
Neither Trump nor any of his defenders were allowed to testify in the House hearings.
And if that testimony and evidence would exonerate Trump, would that be OK with you...because that's what would happen.
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?
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.
It's the "keep screaming at the sky" strategy.
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"?
They are going to be doing a lot of that!
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
Why do you say something so obviously silly?
I don't care if it's 10,000 pages long. 10,000 pages of bullshit is still bullshit.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
That's false.
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'
ONE person testified to that and then he said this:
Skip to 2:03 if you must.
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.
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.
False. The House is in litigation right now.
That 'collectively' is bullshit.
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.
Everything you just wrote is bullshit.
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.
He doesn't have to. Each house sets its own rules. Did Schiff negotiate the rules for the House inquiry?
— Sen. McConnell
Yet Vic claimed that it was Schumer who refused to negotiate.
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.
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
“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.
Carl Bernstein has a new nickname for Moscow Mitch, it's now Midnight Mitch.
I like it!
No name calling here.
Tell that to Carl Bernstein.
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.
And if they can they will impeach him again
That's what you did to Kavanaugh. No, you don't get to have a rolling investigation. Make your case!
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.
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
Fine and if we find that Parnas is lying his ass off to get a lighter sentence, then what? What should the consequences be?
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.
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.
I guess that democrats should have called for Bolton's testimony
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.
A President has the right to claim executive privilege. All of them!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
Then present your case, if you have one. Digging for new info indicates that you don't.
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.
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."
No doubt about it, Schiff is a talented legal mind - in the style of Weissmann and Avenatti.
McCarthyism ?
McCarthy No.....Roy Cohn Yes!
It seems that all members of congress have themselves tightly wrapped in the Constitution. Thus, we can sit back and watch it unfold!
But....the "Constitution" is ….. living....Breathing....changeable based on circumstances at a whim !
Which are you looking at ?
That's funny.
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.
BTW, according to Laura Ingraham, that was Pat Cipollone's first time speaking before the cameras - and he kicked ass!
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.
He also had the press on his side. Trump obviously does not.
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 !
Don't hurt the feelings of the Press. They'll try and destroy you for it, even if your Mother Theresa.
Roy Cohn, what a repulsive excuse for a human being.
He doesn't have to demonstrate anything. It is the democrats responsibility to prove he is guilty, and as of now, they have failed.
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.
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.
No he didn't. Barr didn't even investigate the criminal referrals himself.
FAIL.
Show respect for members by using their screen name loki.
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.
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.
Cohen wasn't prosecuted by Mueller. Cohen was investigated by the SDNY, NOT Mueller. Opps...
So both of you 'arguments' are uninformed.
Of course Mueller investigated Cohen. He just turned the prosecution over to the SDNY because it was small potatoes. Opps indeed.
FACTS MATTER.
No he was not
No, you don’t. All you have is fantasy.
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.
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!
And McConnell Hasn't?
Amazes me when people see something only on one side of the isle. Even when their own admit it.
I see the honorable Bret Baier and the stylish Martha MacCallum have arrived: It's time for the Senate Leader to speak!
What is the reason for the recess? Just a little surprised.
"Crying Chuck" is trying to force the "Senate" to do what the "House" shoulda done.
Like calling REAL witnesses.
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.
It's a time of reckoning for one "never Trumper."
Romney dismisses Dem concerns over Trump impeachment trial rules: "Not an issue of significance"
Ya, your'e getting it Mitt!
Be back in a few
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