Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 08, 2020

A growing number of Democratic senators are saying it's time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to submit the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate.

"We are reaching a point where the articles of impeachment should be sent," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told reporters Wednesday.

In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he believes "it is time for the speaker to send" the articles.

Meanwhile, Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., told CNN on Tuesday in remarks confirmed by NBC News that he is "hoping" Pelosi will soon submit the articles.

Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Joe Manchin, D-W.V., both told The Washington Post on Tuesday that they believe it's time to transmit the articles.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

You have to give Nancy credit for trying to repair the Schiffshow that she was handed, but the writing is now on the wall and Sens. Blumenthal, King, Jones, Murphy and Manchin recognize this simple fact.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-08 03:17 PM | Reply

"You have to give Nancy credit for trying"

Did you send your Senator a card, or does this call for flowers?

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-08 03:23 PM | Reply

Stand your ground Nancy, it's the principle of the issue!

#3 | Posted by 6thPersona at 2020-01-08 04:08 PM | Reply

Glad we have RightOfMussolini to tell us what the Democrats in the Senate are saying to Pelosi. Real reliable.

#4 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-08 04:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#4

Just cutting and pasting from that bastion of the Right, NBC News, Moderhate.

Sorry that eviscerates The Narrative that you so desperately cling to.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-08 04:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yeah. We're eviscerated.

Get a life.

#6 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-08 04:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#6

LOL, after showing your post to be meaningless whining about me, you still have nothing to say about the actual quotes from the NBC News article, which you derided as being unreliable without actually reading the article. I hope for your clients' sakes your research skills are better than you exhibited on this thread.

Here ya go little fella.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-08 04:22 PM | Reply

Glad we have RightOfMussolini

#4 | Posted by moder8

This is the same dope that was whining about my hyperbole in describing Democrats as Trotskyites, etc.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-08 04:22 PM | Reply

It sounds like the gig is up for Pelosi.

It's amazing how impeachment had to be rushed because Trump is an existential threat to the country now the House just sits on them so Pelosi can try to dictate to McConnell how the Senate is to conduct its hearing.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-08 05:32 PM | Reply

It's amazing how impeachment had to be rushed because Trump is an existential threat to the country now the House just sits on them so Pelosi can try to dictate to McConnell how the Senate is to conduct its hearing.
#9 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

One thing I can see that she's begging for (that we ALL should be begging for) is an assurance that NEW witness testimony will be considered. Do you have an issue with that? If so, why? If not, why are you making Pelosi out to be the bad guy here?

#10 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-08 06:12 PM | Reply

#10 If they handle it the way Clinton's impeachment was handled they will file a motion to consider witnesses.

Pelosi is the bad guy because the House had just as much power to have witnesses as the Senate and the House didn't do it.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-08 06:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"It's amazing how impeachment had to be rushed because"

Fake news.
Impeachment wasn't rushed.
Not even close to rushed.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-08 10:06 PM | Reply

It's amazing how impeachment had to be rushed because Trump is an existential threat to the country now the House just sits on them so Pelosi can try to dictate to McConnell how the Senate is to conduct its hearing.

#9 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yeah, they should just rush into pushing the ball into a court where the rules are stacked completely against them.

Let's just get the kangaroo court over so you guys can get in to claiming Trump has been vindicated, right?

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 07:55 AM | Reply

Yeah, they should just rush into pushing the ball into a court where the rules are stacked completely against them.

That's how it was in the House.

Funny how you were totally cool with it at that phase of the process.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-09 08:15 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Yawn

Righties are such whiny faux victims.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 11:09 AM | Reply

And by "stacked against them" I mean the process is designed to make this go away without a good faith effort to hold an actual trial.

No surprise you'd support this joke.

#16 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 11:10 AM | Reply

#13-16

Anyone who can claim, with a serious face, that the Schiffshow wasn't a kangaroo court is a hyperpartisan to the core.

Stop whining now that the Dems no longer control the circus and get your congressperson to pressure Nancy to present the Articles to the Senate so that the trial (using the Clinton process) can begin.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-09 01:18 PM | Reply

- Schiffshow wasn't a kangaroo court

It was a court where the Pres withheld ALL the main witnesses with a blanket order and refusing to testify himself, something never done previously.

The idea that the GOP could have called actual fact witnesses that would have rebutted the testimony of actual fact witnesses the were called.... is just another delusion of those smoking the orange dope.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-09 01:22 PM | Reply

That's how it was in the House.

Funny how you were totally cool with it at that phase of the process.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-09 08:15 AM |

This response from democrats is neither unusual or surprising.

" Apparently, when you treat people the way they treat you, they get upset"

#19 | Posted by rhet at 2020-01-09 01:29 PM | Reply

"Funny how you were totally cool with it at that phase of the process."

It's a funny process:

"But mainly you used the grand jury to indict people," Wolfe wrote, "and in the famous phrase of Sol Wachtler, chief judge of the State Court of Appeals, a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."

The House did their job, which is to indict, or in this case, impeach.
The Senate's job is entirely different. The Senate's duty is to give the impeached a fair trial.
Understand?

Specifically, do you understand that if the indictment was unfair, the best way for that to be revealed is in a fiar trail?
Do you understand this or not, JeffJ?

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-09 04:08 PM | Reply

The House isn't a grand jury and the Senate isn't a jury. The impeachment process is political and McConnell has said they'll use the same process they used for Clinton. When the Senate voted on those rules the count was 100-0.

Given that, I'd like to think that should mollify all of you.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-09 04:37 PM | Reply

"Given that, I'd like to think that should mollify all of you."

are any of them going to get what they want?

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-09 04:48 PM | Reply

"the Senate isn't a jury. "

During Impeachment, the Senate is absolutely a jury. They are the jurors, voting in a trial for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Your behavior and commentary is disgusting and offensive.

Go read your Constitution.
Here, I'll make it really, really easy:

Article I
Section 3
Paragraph 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-09 04:54 PM | Reply

Holding the Articles is the only leverage Dems have left. The Senate has made it clear they have no intention of holding a trial that actually includes witnesses or fair jurors. So what is the point of sending the Articles over? What am i missing?

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-09 05:25 PM | Reply

the Senate isn't a jury

They literally take an oath to do "impartial justice" in an impeachment trial, but i'm sure you'll find some way to parse that to death.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-09 05:27 PM | Reply

en.wikipedia.org

Impeachment in the United States is the process by which a legislature (usually in the form of the lower house) brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. Impeachment may occur at the federal level or the state level. The federal House of Representatives can impeach federal officials, including the president, and each state's legislature can impeach state officials, including the governor, in accordance with their respective federal or state constitution.

Senate trial

Depiction of the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding.
The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his or her own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence. After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. The Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority to convict a person being impeached.[32] The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State.[22] Upon conviction in the Senate, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office. The trial is not an actual criminal proceeding and more closely resembles a civil service termination appeal in terms of the contemplated deprivation. Therefore, the removed official may still be liable to criminal prosecution under a subsequent criminal proceeding. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting Federal criminal case.[33][failed verification (See discussion.)]

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-09 05:44 PM | Reply

#24

They are using the exact same process that was used for Clinton.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-09 05:56 PM | Reply

is a hyperpartisan to the core.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter

LOL this from the guy who for months has been "I'm pro-impeached...no no no that's partisan crap. No I swear, I'm pro-impeachment. No no no that's too fast...wait now too slow...wait too fast again...wai...*checks talking points*...no still too fast. False alarm. Seriously guys, I'm pro-impeachment, I just want the Dems to kick this to a partisan Senate who's going to throw it out without even opening it. Why don't you guys believe I'm pro-impeachment?"

Disingenuous trash.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 06:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

that the Schiffshow wasn't a kangaroo court

You mean where they didn't have a Special Counsel report and therefore needed to undertake fact finding inquiries?

You mean where the GOP didn't participate in good faith but instead stormed secure rooms (with electronics), walked out of meetings and, amazingly, found nothing in all those nothingberders to leak to the press?

You mean where DOTUS ordered key witnesses to ignore subpoenas?

You mean where hearing rules written by Repubs on their last actual witch hunt were followed?

It absolutely was a kangaroo court, but you need to look in the mirror to see why, counselor.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 06:23 PM | Reply

This response from democrats is neither unusual or surprising.

" Apparently, when you treat people the way they treat you, they get upset"

#19 | Posted by rhet

Hey idiot, if the chief of police in your town acted like a jacka-- because he thought he could and committed a crime in the process, only to coordinate with the judge as to how the defense would proceed and to skew the trial in their favor while being openly supported by the jury foreman and multiple jurors before trial even began...

...would you be so cavalier about it?

Even if it turned out to not be criminal conduct but abuse of office to further his own means at the expense of the citizenry and should still result in their ouster?

Because that's what you're saying is just fine.

While whining about the Democrats so you can feel like you're participating.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 06:28 PM | Reply

Sorry that eviscerates The Narrative that you so desperately cling to.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter

The only people clinging to "The Narrative" is people like you who trot that trite phrase out whenever you can because you have nothing useful to say.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 06:29 PM | Reply

The House isn't a grand jury and the Senate isn't a jury. The impeachment process is political and McConnell has said they'll use the same process they used for Clinton. When the Senate voted on those rules the count was 100-0.

Given that, I'd like to think that should mollify all of you.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ

Impeachment is the nuke option and this is only the third time it's been used.

Demanding it be constrained by what little precedence there is is a cop out, particularly since one of them was over 150 years ago.

Doubly so since the only modern impeachment had the benefit of the Independent counsel's report and investigation to draw from.

The investigative phase of the House's inquiry was stymied repeatedly by Trump and his sycophants and there remains witnesses of significant interest and gravity who haven't testified.

Shrugging one's shoulders at the stark contrasts between the two situations is beyond partisan. It's brainless, drooling on oneself level partisan stupidity.

Anybody who wants anything less than the full truth is an idiot.

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 06:40 PM | Reply

en.wikipedia.org

Read up kiddos.

thehill.com

Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials provides the text: "I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of [in this case, Donald J. Trump] now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God."

Maybe McConnell will show enough of a spine to forgo the oath? Then you guys might have a leg to stand on.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 06:47 PM | Reply

They are using the exact same process that was used for Clinton.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ

This is a cop out.

Stop using it.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 06:48 PM | Reply

Wow, looks like JPW needs to join Angry Little Joe at his Anger Management courses.

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-09 07:00 PM | Reply

#34

It's also true.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-09 07:00 PM | Reply

CJ Rehnquist disagrees with you...who to believe..who to believe?? lol
Actually, the Constitution, which mentions juries in several places, does not say that the Senate will serve as a jury in an impeachment, or that senators will be jurors. During the Clinton impeachment, Iowa Democratic Senator Tom Harkin objected to the use of the word "juror" to describe senators. Harkin had a variety of reasons but basically believed Republican House managers were trying "to put parameters on what we could do in the Senate, that all we could do was to take the facts and decide." In Harkin's view, senators could, in fact, "be expansive." Rehnquist agreed. "The objection of the senator from Iowa is well taken," the chief justice said, "that the Senate is not simply a jury; it is a court in this case. Therefore, counsel should refrain from referring to the senators as jurors."

#37 | Posted by homerj at 2020-01-09 07:17 PM | Reply

It's also true.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter

I didn't say it was untrue.

I said it's a cop out.

Find somebody to explain it to you if you're still not getting it.

Your other post is just more garbage. Not responding to it directly.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 07:21 PM | Reply

#27 That's not a response to my post in any way.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-09 07:35 PM | Reply

I said it's a cop out.

So the process that was unanimously approved by the Senate for the Clinton Impeachment trial (hearing arguments and then voting on witnesses) is not good enough for you in the Trump trial?

Got it.

(shrieks of "it's totally different because there was an Special Prosecutor blah blah blah..." incoming in 3...2...1)

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-09 08:18 PM | Reply

I was too young during Clinton's bj to pay attention.

Did Clinton instruct everyone to stonewall the HoR's subpoenas? Did he meet with members of senate to discuss what to say while on the stand?

Do you believe Trump is going to sit on the witness stand and get questioned by democrats?

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-09 08:31 PM | Reply

shrieks of "it's totally different because there was an Special Prosecutor blah blah blah..." incoming in 3...2...1

That's true.

That you'd write it off so easily makes it laughable that you'd comment on partisanship.

My argument boils down to the precedence is so lacking pointing to precedence is stupid.

Not to mention the fact that the gravity of the situation means we should be acting in as good a faith as we can muster and should be handling these in a case by case fashion.

Sorry you've turned into such a partisan ---- that you want to cookie cutter this schit so you can claim to be "for impeachment" while clearly being for Trump.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 08:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Got it.

You don't get schit.

My argument is quite linear. If you can't follow then you're stupider than I thought.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 08:33 PM | Reply

Seriously, RoC. Other than it being the only other modern impeachment and one of two impeachments TOTAL, what rationale is there for adhering to the Clinton impeachment protocol? Especially when one considers there is no cut and dried template for impeachment proceedings, with the exception of the Senate acting in good faith pursuant to their Oath, and, therefore, no argument against anything but the most stringent procedure possible.

Why be such a weak minded fool so as to cling to something whether or not it's warranted instead of pushing for the most rigorous assessment of facts possible given the gravity of the situation.

Why would you push for something that shorts our knowledge of the actions of a clearly inappropriate (you agree with that, right? being pro-impeachment and all...) POTUS simply because "that's how we've done it".

"That's how we've always done it" is the rationale for the stupidest, most lazy ass nonsense in the history of humanity. Sitting on your haunches, especially in times when you should be alert, ready and dead ---- serious, is the best way to get yourself completely f---ed.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 08:42 PM | Reply

#44

When those rules were voted in the tally was 100-0.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-09 08:48 PM | Reply

When those rules were voted in the tally was 100-0.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ

Different time.

Different Senate.

Different impeachment.

Different gravity of offenses.

Same. Lame. Ass. Cop out.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 08:54 PM | Reply

The fact that you ignored or couldn't reply to 90% of that post should signal to you how gossamer thin your argument is.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 08:55 PM | Reply

100-0?

Why do you expect two different standards?

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-09 08:55 PM | Reply

JPW

What specifically about the rules do you have a problem with?

Sorry, I'm jumping in late and haven't had an opportunity to scroll up.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-09 08:57 PM | Reply

en.wikipedia.org

Witnesses were called at Andrew Johnson's impeachment.

If you're going to base your decision on the thin precedence that exists, why ignore half of it and favor the Clinton impeachment?

What arbitrary condition exists in the Clinton trial that makes you want to cling to desperately to it?

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 09:02 PM | Reply

JPW

Clinton blocked witnesses and the House took the step to get a court order. Why didn't the House get a court order this time?

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-09 09:02 PM | Reply

Why do you expect two different standards?

#48 | Posted by JeffJ

Did you not read any of my post?

That vote didn't pass a law (did it?).

Nor did it amend the Constitution to add specificity to impeachment trial protocol.

BTW ask yourself your own question after reading #50.

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 09:03 PM | Reply

#50 the Clinton procedure allowed for witnesses to be called.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-09 09:05 PM | Reply

What specifically about the rules do you have a problem with?

They're not "the rules".

A) There is no specific protocol laid out for impeachment trials.

B) There sufficient precedence, IMO, to cling to precedence.

C) What precedence there is is contradictory.

Finally, given the gravity of the situation impeachment should be a case by case issue.

Sorry, but perjury to cover a hummer under the Resolute Desk (while wrong) is not the same as abuse of office for personal gain followed by abuse of office to obstruct consequences for abuse of office.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 09:09 PM | Reply

#50 the Clinton procedure allowed for witnesses to be called.

Edited videos of depositions were played.

There wasn't any eyewitness testimony.

(just realized what a strange word eyewitness is...typed it out and swore it was wrong because it just looked...."off" *shrug*)

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-09 09:24 PM | Reply

Why be such a weak minded fool so as to cling to something whether or not it's warranted instead of pushing for the most rigorous assessment of facts possible given the gravity of the situation.

I have posted dozens of times that is what Congress needed to do, they are the ones trying to prove their Articles of Impeachment. I have posted several articles by Prof. John Turley that says just that and that it was short sighted by Congress to rush to a vote without "seeking out the most rigorous assesment of facts possible given the gravity of the situation." Speaking of weak minded fools, its telling that you don't hold the Dems to your own standard.

Why would you push for something that shorts our knowledge of the actions of a clearly inappropriate (you agree with that, right? being pro-impeachment and all...) POTUS simply because "that's how we've done it".

Once again, why were you satisfied that the Dems settled, for the sake of speed, on Articles that "that short our knowledge of the actions of a clearly inappropriate POTUS"?

Since the House rushed the process to get ahead of the Primaries, that is their problem. The Senate trial is not a platform for the prosecution to continue to develop their theories. Pelosi and Schumer know that they are holding a bucket of shht from a trial standpoint, and McConnell is not going to allow his chamber to be a higher level discovery platform.

Schiff/Nancy/Nadler made this bed, and now they have to sleep in it.

#56 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-09 11:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Schiff/Nancy/Nadler made this bed, and now they have to sleep in it.

They better get one of those custom-made Michael Moore beds.

#57 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-09 11:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The time for discovery was the House impeachment. McConnell will rightly limit the Senate hearing to what the House presents with its two articles. Obstruction of congress will rightly be dismissed out of hand. Abuse of power will be "on trial."

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-09 11:39 PM | Reply

The time for discovery was the House impeachment.

Certainly if you had a good case your best evidence would have been used for the "impeachment" vote.

To come in later with "NEW" testimony, just indicates the lack of evidence in their case to begin with.

#59 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-09 11:42 PM | Reply

The time for discovery was the House impeachment.

I actually agree with you that the House should have gone to the mat over subpoenas. And for whatever reason, they didn't. Perhaps it was a calculated judgment that the partisan SC would decline to hear the dispute, and a loss would reflect negatively on the proceedings.

But whatever the reason, if you actually think Trump's conduct is impeachable (which you've claimed in the past), i find it incredible that you wouldn't want all information about the incident to be made public so that those deciding the president's fate can make the most educated judgment possible.

Saying "too bad, you had your chance" when the executive branch was doing everything it had to prevent testimony is a convenient exit ramp for someone who doesn't want information to get out, and nothing more.

#60 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 10:34 AM | Reply

But whatever the reason, if you actually think Trump's conduct is impeachable (which you've claimed in the past), i find it incredible that you wouldn't want all information about the incident to be made public

#60 | Posted by JOE at 2020-

I wonder what possible explanation there could be for that?

#61 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-10 10:50 AM | Reply

Back when i was a litigator, we would look for any reason to get rid of a defensive case. If the plaintiff hadn't technically exhausted all administrative remedies, if they had waited one day too long to file their appeal, if they had failed to properly notarize their mechanics lien - these were all very technical ways to avoid getting to the merits of their case. And i would use these technicalities to my clients' advantage, despite the fact that the plaintiffs all had valid claims against my clients.

I liken that to Jeff's argument. Saying "oops, you missed boat!" is a purely technical glitch that only a paid advocate would rely upon. Someone who cares about the facts should do better.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 11:01 AM | Reply

The same goes for insisting that the rules from Clinton's impeachment be used.

There's zero well supported reasons for demanding that other than it greases the skies of Trump's acquittal and salvages what little of his image might be left.

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-10 11:51 AM | Reply

Joe,

There's a difference between what I want to see happen and what I can reasonably expect to happen.

You acknowledge that the House totally punted on having at least 1 firsthand witness testify.

That was a royal eff-up. It was incumbent on the House to provide the Senate a complete case. They didn't.

Now, I'd like to hear from at least 1 firsthand witness and hopefully that will happen. If it doesn't, I blame the House not the Senate. They rushed and half-assed the process and that's on them.

Here's another thing to consider - a transcript of the call was released to the public months ago. I get that it was a rough transcript but I've yet to see any "anonymous sources" contradict the meat of the call. I'm not sure if we'd learn anything new with firsthand witness testimonial.

Changing gears a bit...Pelosi sitting on this indefinitely worsens the optics of this entire process with each passing day, especially when members of her own party in the Senate are calling for her to pass this to the Senate. This is something that should be taken very seriously and the House Democrats have made a joke of the entire process, between the 1-sided kangaroo court process - failing to seek court orders to compel witness testimony - taking the issue of impeachment, which screams for bipartisanship and making it hyperpartisan (the 2 defectors were both Democrats), to then sitting on the articles whilst making absurd demands to the Senate with no leverage - and all of this after claiming emphatically that this had to be rushed because the president is an existential threat to our country....honestly, I have no idea what Pelosi was thinking. She was avoiding this path and once she got dragged down it everything was handled about as poorly as it could have been handled.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-10 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The same goes for insisting that the rules from Clinton's impeachment be used. JPW

At what point do you hold the House accountable for utterly failing to present a complete case to the Senate?

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-10 11:54 AM | Reply

What makes you think I agree with how they've gone about impeaching that ---------?

The Dems are incompetent morons in about 90% of the things they do.

The problem is the GOP are competent schitheap immoral garbage piles of humanity 98% of the time.

I'm stuck choosing between incompetence, awful human beings or unknown/other.

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-10 12:22 PM | Reply

I get that it was a rough transcript but I've yet to see any "anonymous sources" contradict the meat of the call.

You're kidding, right?

#67 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-10 12:23 PM | Reply

#66 | POSTED BY JPW

Fair enough.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-10 01:11 PM | Reply

You acknowledge that the House totally punted on having at least 1 firsthand witness testify.

That's a lie. Vindman was a firsthand witness. Why are you such a liar?

It was incumbent on the House to provide the Senate a complete case. They didn't.

Like i said - you either want to hear the truth, or you don't. You want to evade testimony based on a technical or procedural basis, then i'm putting you in the latter category. Enjoy!

#69 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 02:27 PM | Reply

Like i said - you either want to hear the truth, or you don't. You want to evade testimony based on a technical or procedural basis, then i'm putting you in the latter category. Enjoy!

#69 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2020-01-10 02:27 PM

Like I already said, there's a difference between what I want and what I expect will happen.

On the thread that Pelosi agreed to introduce articles of impeachment to the Senate next week, I laid out what I think McConnell's opening statement will be. I based it on what I think he should say if I were in his shoes. What I laid out is in fact fair. Would I like to hear Bolton testify? Absolutely. Will he? Extremely doubtful and if he doesn't testify it's still fair.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-10 02:57 PM | Reply

This is my post from the Pelosi agrees to send impeachment to the Senate thread:

Pelosi prepares to send Articles of Impeachment to Senate

Here's how I envision McConnell's opening remarks:

"All who have assembled here, the House held an impeachment inquiry, built a case, introduced 2 articles of impeachment and held a vote. With the exception of 2 House Democrats voting against, the vote was a strict party-line vote and articles passed with a simple majority. Back in 1998 when the House impeached Bill Clinton the Senate drafted up protocols dictating how the hearing would proceed in the Senate. Those protocols were put to a vote and the vote was unanimous with all 100 Senators approving of the protocols with not a single nay vote. Given the overwhelming bipartisanship at that time coupled with no interest in reinventing the wheel, those protocols will be in operation for these hearings. This is how it will work: The appointed House managers will present 2 articles of impeachment. 1 article for obstruction of Congress and 1 for abuse of power. This hearing is not a fishing expedition. We will hear the case the House managers present and that is it. After the House managers introduce articles of impeachment they will take questions from this chamber. Once that is complete the Executive will introduce a defense and will then take questions. At that point we will hold a motion to call witnesses. If that motion passes material witnesses will be limited to those who were called by the House. Again, as I said earlier, this hearing is limited to the case the House brings before us and nothing more. After that motion passes or doesn't pass we will be in the home stretch. We will now be in the phase of determining whether or not the articles of impeachment warrant removing the president from office. The House called 4 legal experts to weigh in during the impeachment phase of this 2-step process. Once the case the House has brought before us has been fully presented and the defense fully heard we will also bring in 4 legal experts to weigh in in order to better help each Senator determine whether or not the president should be removed from office. We will follow the same precedent the House established, that means 3 legal experts will be chosen by the majority party and 1 legal expert will be chosen by the minority party. After each expert makes and opening statement they will take questions. Once that has been completed the House managers will make a closing argument. After the House makes its closing argument the Executive branch will make a closing argument. After that, we will hold a vote whether or not to remove the president based upon the case the House managers have made weighed against the defense the Executive office has presented. A 2/3 super majority is required to remove the president from office.

With no further ado I introduce the House managers to introduce articles of impeachment to this chamber..."

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-01-10 02:51 PM

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-10 03:00 PM | Reply

there's a difference between what I want and what I expect will happen.

"The House had just as much power to have witnesses as the Senate and the House didn't do it" are not the words of someone who wants to hear witnesses testify. They are the words of someone who wants to extricate themselves from hearing testimony via a perceived procedural flaw.

#72 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-10 03:49 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort