Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 22, 2020

About 71 percent of Republicans believe that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should call witnesses during President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, a new survey showed.

Advertisement

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.

Hunter Biden for John Bolton.

Deal?

#1 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-21 08:29 PM | Reply

Joe Biden for Donald Trump.

Deal?

#2 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 08:33 PM | Reply

71 percent of Republicans

"Inconceivable!" - JeffyJ

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 08:48 PM | Reply

Could this possibly really mean the GOP is down to only 29% Deplorable?

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 08:50 PM | Reply

something smells rotten in Denmark....

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-01-21 08:53 PM | Reply

#1 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

No the Dems had their witnesses, seems fair no? ......

71% want Hunter Biden, followed by Alexandra Chalupa; Figure the Republican runs the Senate so Republican can choose the witnesses, you know just like the House did.

#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-21 09:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

David Jolly @DavidJollyFL

Senate Dems should offer a motion calling Trump to testify. Make Republicans vote against it.
8:25 AM - 21 Jan 2020

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 09:24 PM | Reply

Alexandra Chalupa for Lev Parnas.

Or maybe Rudy G.

Deal?

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 09:26 PM | Reply

Supoena both of these clowns.

static.pjmedia.com

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-21 09:28 PM | Reply

- 71% want Hunter Biden

Who knows absolutely nothing about the facts in this case... so, just like Mattress.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 09:29 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Democrats are hoping John Bolton will bring down Trump. Good luck with that.
www.washingtonpost.com

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-21 09:31 PM | Reply

Who knows absolutely nothing about the facts in this case... so, just like Mattress.
#10 | POSTED BY CORKY

I know enough all Trump has to do, if it gets that far, is to assert Biden was breaking the law (which he admitted to on video), and its perfectly reasonable for the US Government to ascertain the details of that arrangement.

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-21 09:33 PM | Reply

Democrats are hoping John Bolton will bring down Trump. Good luck with that.
www.washingtonpost.com
#11 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

For the record, I'm not a democrat nor a lib.

#13 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-21 09:35 PM | Reply

This is an example of how polls are misunderstood.

So what that 71% want witness testimony?

Is is important to them? Meaning...when that 71% see no witness testimony, is it going to matter?

My guess is no. People see polls like this, they develop false hope.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-21 09:36 PM | Reply

I know enough all Trump has to do, if it gets that far, is to assert Biden was breaking the law (which he admitted to on video), and its perfectly reasonable for the US Government to ascertain the details of that arrangement.
#12 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

So that's where you're at with this?

JFC.

#15 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-21 09:37 PM | Reply

My guess is no. People see polls like this, they develop false hope.
#14 | POSTED BY EBERLY

It's meant to be emblematic of what those surveyed want through this process.

Nothing more, nothing less; your injection of meaning notwithstanding.

#16 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-21 09:38 PM | Reply

#12

No, dumbass...Trump was interested in his personal gain in this current election; finding dirt on his opponent whether it was true or not.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-21 09:41 PM | Reply

#1

That is a deal that if I were McConnell I would take, Bolton would be far less damaging to Trump than Hunter would be for the Dems case, with the added potential of Bolton going batshht on the Dems.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-21 10:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That is a deal that if I were McConnell I would take, Bolton would be far less damaging to Trump than Hunter would be for the Dems case, with the added potential of Bolton going batshht on the Dems.

#18 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Democrats have routinely savaged Bolton and he's a prickly SOB. He's a wild-card witness and calling him opens up calling Joe and Hunter Biden, among others.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 10:40 PM | Reply

Bolton would possibly skewer Trump on the stand to get even or he might cast doubt on Trump's culpability in the Ukraine matter. I'm guessing he would skewer him. Bolton just seems to really be a vindictive -----.

#20 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-01-21 10:52 PM | Reply

Whatever all these people have to say.. I want to hear it. Let all the evidence come out and then America can decide.... radical I know.

#21 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2020-01-22 07:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Supoena both of these clowns.
static.pjmedia.com

#9 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

The only clowns are you and the rest of the GOP circus.

How does it feel to be so stupid you've been led to this depth of pathetic low life nastiness?

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 07:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

is to assert Biden was breaking the law (which he admitted to on video), and its perfectly reasonable for the US Government to ascertain the details of that arrangement.

#12 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

If you're talking about his comment about the firing of the prosecutor then you're just slinging a well debunked lie.

Are you stupid or dishonest? I never really asked because I just figured you were dishonest.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 07:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Democrats have routinely savaged Bolton and he's a prickly SOB. He's a wild-card witness and calling him opens up calling Joe and Hunter Biden, among others.

#19 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

And you wonder why I think you're a bad joke...

Bolton was in the middle of the actual Ukraine scandal. You know, the one where your boy Trump leveraged Congressionally approved aid for political meddling by a foreign country in his favor.

The Bidens were in the middle of a made up conspiracy theory that was the cover for the above actual scandal.

You can't be this stupid. It's not "impartial" to demand an investigation into a conspiracy theory as a condition of investigating an actual scandal.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 07:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#24 | POSTED BY JPW

I'm explaining political reality. If Dems succeed in getting Bolton to testify, it's going to come at a price - Hunter Biden will also be called to testify.

Here's another bit of reality - Dems screwed the pooch royally with this impeachment gambit - they left a TON on the table and the obstruction of congress article is an absolute joke. They let Senate Republicans off-the-hook and this thing is going down in flames. What's worse, House Dems all-but inoculated Trump from being impeached and removed. Politically they really only had 1 shot at this and I never would have predicted they'd screw it up this badly. I'm blown away by the sheer incompetence of this whole thing.

Impeachment is dead due to incompetence.

Here's another tough reality pill: When impeachment fails there will not be a military coup. Trump will not be removed by force and be drawn and quartered. Pence won't be quickly removed. Pelosi won't be our next president with Congress being dissolved and a dictatorship with re-eductation camps to follow. None of that is going to happen.

Maybe Democrats should, you know, try and win an election, or something. I know, I know, crazy talk.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 08:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I know enough all Trump has to do, if it gets that far, is to assert Biden was breaking the law (which he admitted to on video), and its perfectly reasonable for the US Government to ascertain the details of that arrangement.

#12 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Oh... so you are saying that all the "US Government" has to do is "assert" that someone is breaking the law, and then they can do whatever they want? Can they take your guns if they "assert" that you broke the law? Can they search your house if they "assert" that you broke the law? Can they tap your phones and break into your electronics if they "assert" that you broke the law?

Because my understanding is that the "US Government" has to do more than "assert" something to start trampling on your rights. My understanding is that they have to follow a process and open and investigation and get things like warrants before they can start targeting a US citizen.

Can you please point out to me what legal process the "US Government" followed in its pursuit of Hunter Biden? Did they actually open an investigation? Can you give me a link to the warrants that they used (approved by a judge) to give them the authority to pursue this?

Or are you just claiming that Donald Trump IS the government of the US, and that he can do whatever he wants because he is a Republican (and Republicans don't have to follow the law)?

#26 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2020-01-22 10:49 AM | Reply

Here's another tough reality pill: When impeachment fails there will not be a military coup. Trump will not be removed by force and be drawn and quartered. Pence won't be quickly removed. Pelosi won't be our next president with Congress being dissolved and a dictatorship with re-eductation camps to follow. None of that is going to happen.
Maybe Democrats should, you know, try and win an election, or something. I know, I know, crazy talk.

#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Good lord. What type of crazy strawman are you trying to build here? Projection much?

And maybe Republicans should, you know, try and win an election FAIRLY for once. You know, without soliciting the help of foreign governments. (You know, the whole reason that Donald Trump got impeached?) I know, I know, crazy talk.

Without cheating, how would conservatives ever win???

#27 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2020-01-22 10:53 AM | Reply

I'm explaining political reality. If Dems succeed in getting Bolton to testify, it's going to come at a price - Hunter Biden will also be called to testify.

You keep hiding behind this absurdly thin veneer.

You're like the Roman who knows Commodus is terrible but chooses to talk about the gladiatorial games instead.

they left a TON on the table and the obstruction of congress article is an absolute joke. They let Senate Republicans off-the-hook and this thing is going down in flames.

I don't think the Dems went about doing it right, either. You mistake my absolute view that Trump should be removed as support for how the inept Dems went about trying to do it.

As for letting the Repubs off the hook, that's a millstone around your neck, Jeffius Seenoevilus, and other Romans like you.

Their feet haven't been held to a fire to ensure a process that actually seeks truth and clarification. YOU and people like you have allowed them to abdicate their responsibilities as elected officials to oversee the executive.

Stop acting as if this played out the only way possible and that it's the Dem driving the direction it moved.

Impeachment is dead due to incompetence.

Bullschit.

Impeachment is fine and the Ukraine scandal is more than enough to impeach AND remove. Mueller's obstruction charges should have been added as well.

Removal was DOA. Stop acting as if it was anything else.

Maybe Democrats should, you know, try and win an election, or something. I know, I know, crazy talk.

This is why I've turned to considering you a joke.

You have no real interest in holding Trump or the GOP accountable as evidenced by your ever twist and turn to make it a Dem problem while ignoring the abhorrent behavior of the GOP.

Seriously, it's pathetic that you think your "reasoning" is seen by anybody as anything other than passive aggressive, mealy mouthed partisanship.

Is that harsh? Yup. But thems the facts.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 10:54 AM | Reply

Good lord. What type of crazy strawman are you trying to build here? Projection much?

No, he's just explaining the "political reality" to us children.

Which means, you know, telling us why everything Commodus Trumpus does is the Democrat's fault.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 10:55 AM | Reply

#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

And, here you are again defending extreme partisanship. Saying that two wrongs make a right (or, in this case, a "wrong" you perceive due to your bias, justifies your own wrong, which you ACKNOWLEDGE as a wrong).

As you said, the Dems left a lot on the table. Everyone knows it is there. And, instead of pursuing the truth, Republicans are intentionally IGNORING it. You are knowingly trying to put on a sham trial, which even you will acknowledge is an immoral and unethical thing to do. But you justify your immoral and unethical behavior by saying that it is justified because OTHER PEOPLE are also (in your opinion) immoral and unethical. Conservatives' morals and ethics are all relative. And, for some reason, you think saying it is "politics" justifies immoral and unethical behavior.

The irony is that conservatives claim to be christians. Do the ten commandments say "Thou shalt not steal, unless you think they stole from you first, then steal all you want"? My interpretation of that religion is that it teaches that morality is NOT relative.

That is why I cannot support christianity. Because its most fervent supposed supporters are the ones most disconnected from its supposed basic tenants.

#30 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2020-01-22 11:06 AM | Reply

You keep hiding behind this absurdly thin veneer.

You're living in denial and I'm not talking about an African river.

Impeachment is fine and the Ukraine scandal is more than enough to impeach AND remove. Mueller's obstruction charges should have been added as well.

I agree on both counts.

Removal was DOA. Stop acting as if it was anything else.

That is a direct result of a lack of strong public support for removal. Spare me any conspiracy crap about Senate Republicans backing Trump no matter what. If the public strongly wanted Trump removed the Senate would act accordingly, and not out of principle, but because the 11th Commandment is: Thou shall be re-elected.

But thems the facts.

#28 | POSTED BY JPW

No, it's your opinion and nothing more. This is why I bring up your lack of humility - you regard your personal opinion as absolute fact. Given how wrong you were about the Page FISA warrants I would have thought it might give you pause as to believing you are always right. I guess that was foolish of me to expect any kind of introspection from you.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:15 AM | Reply

That is a direct result of a lack of strong public support for removal. Spare me any conspiracy crap about Senate Republicans backing Trump no matter what.

LOL we're done dude.

---- off.

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:17 AM | Reply

#30 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

The House brings articles of impeachment. The Senate hears what is brought and also hears the defense (shocking, I know).

This is why I've been ripping the House for leaving so much on the table and further muddying the waters by their bogus obstruction of congress article.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:18 AM | Reply

---- off.

#32 | POSTED BY JPW

Back at you, Copernicus.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:18 AM | Reply

Given how wrong you were about the Page FISA warrants I would have thought it might give you pause as to believing you are always right.

What, you mean that the Horowitz findings weren't a weaponization of the DoJ but ingrained culture of manipulation and abuse of the process? That in light of that nothing out of the ordinary was done in the investigation of Trump's campaign?

I was more right than you were and continue to be so.

Probably because admitting that would mean acknowledging the forest for what it is-that the GOP you support everyday is a morally vacuous organization intent only on power and self-enrichment. Your concern with right and wrong begins and ends with whether or not it shines a poor light on the GOP.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:21 AM | Reply

What, you mean that the Horowitz findings weren't a weaponization of the DoJ but ingrained culture of manipulation and abuse of the process?

Before the IG report was released you were adamant that those FISA warrants were properly obtained and you would go ------- on anyone who said otherwise.

That is what I am referring to. You were dead wrong about that but still think you know everything. Well, you don't. I don't either but I don't pretend that I do.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:24 AM | Reply

That is what I am referring to. You were dead wrong about that but still think you know everything.

You're playing a sleight of hand.

I was adamant that the investigations weren't politically motivated and driven by a desire to overturn an election by a cadre of secret Hillary supporters hiding in the DOJ leadership.

Which was the conspiracy theory being peddled by the likes of the WH, Hannity and other friendly righty media outlets.

Well, it wasn't and that investigation was conducted in the same flawed way all others were/are.

Admitting that isn't me agreeing with it, it's saying that the investigation was conducted with the same level of "good faith" as every other and indicates that it was initiated out of valid concerns over Page's contacts, Trump's associates and clear patterns seen by various agencies.

But keep missing that forest for the select trees you've latched on to to justify continuing to spew your preconceived conclusion.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:29 AM | Reply

That is a direct result of a lack of strong public support for removal. Spare me any conspiracy crap about Senate Republicans backing Trump no matter what. If the public strongly wanted Trump removed the Senate would act accordingly, and not out of principle, but because the 11th Commandment is: Thou shall be re-elected.

#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Lol... We haven't even had the trial yet. Why should there even BE "strong public support for removal"? Shouldn't the people wait for the facts to come out at trial, and listen to Trump's defense before coming to a conclusion about whether he should be removed?

You are claiming, basically, that if people do the moral and ethical thing of RESERVING JUDGEMENT until a trial has been conducted that gives both sides a fair chance to present their case, then that JUSTIFIES the Republicans putting on a sham trial that is tilted towards acquitting Trump.

Based upon the evidence already presented, I think that Trump should be removed. But I realize that all the facts have not been presented yet (though the ones that have look pretty damning). So I want a FULL AND FAIR trial so that I can hear Trump's side of things and am willing to change my opinion based upon what is presented. You are the one advocating NOT having a full and fair trial. And you think your immorality is justified by the actions of others.

I teach my children that they are always supposed to do the right thing, regardless of others' actions. If someone steals your toy, it does not give you the right to steal one of theirs. If they are not sharing, it does not mean that you don't have to share with them. If they hit you, it does not give you the right to hit them back. If conservatives are teaching their children the same morality that conservatives use for politics, then it is no surprise that conservatives think that "values" in the US are going down the toilet. Because conservatives are the ones flushing them.

Jeff... YOU built that.

#38 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2020-01-22 11:29 AM | Reply

Horowitz findings weren't a weaponization of the DoJ but ingrained culture of manipulation and abuse of the process?

Yet you are adamantly opposed to an investigation into that culture. You acknowledge that it's wrong (which is more that some people on this site will admit) yet it's wrong to investigate it. Makes no sense.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:29 AM | Reply

We haven't even had the trial yet. Why should there even BE "strong public support for removal"? Shouldn't the people wait for the facts to come out at trial, and listen to Trump's defense before coming to a conclusion about whether he should be removed?

House Democrats have been in control of the narrative up until now. Reality is they are about the pass the conch to the president's defense team. The House managers aren't bringing forth anything that isn't already publicly known. With a lack of strong public support for removal, impeachment isn't going to get any Senate Republican votes and may likely even see a Senate Dem defector or three. It sucks but that's reality.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:33 AM | Reply

You're playing a sleight of hand.

No, I'm not. I'm calling you out for being so blatantly wrong and you are moving the goalposts.

But keep missing that forest for the select trees you've latched on to to justify continuing to spew your preconceived conclusion.

#37 | POSTED BY JPW

My preconceived conclusion? The lack of self-awareness you just displayed is staggering.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 11:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, I'm not. I'm calling you out for being so blatantly wrong and you are moving the goalposts.

Stating my actual position in place of your straw man is not moving the goalposts.

My preconceived conclusion? The lack of self-awareness you just displayed is staggering.

You've done nothing but twist and distort that report. The only thing that's been constant is your final conclusion.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-22 11:50 AM | Reply

Seems that the dems articles of impeachment are pretty thin if they, at this point, need more after their biased investigation in the house.

#43 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-01-22 01:06 PM | Reply

71% of Republicans want testimony.
0% of DR right-wing hacks want testimony.

The point is, generally speaking, the right wingers who post on the DR do not reflect Republicans nation-wide. The numbers do not lie.

#44 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-22 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#42. Before the report was released you were adamant the Carter Page FISA warrants were properly obtained. All of your other BS is to obfuscate that you were wrong.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 01:27 PM | Reply

#44,Moder8

Can you name any names? I haven't seen anyone claim that witnesses shouldn't be called under any circumstance.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Silly rabbit; witnesses are for kids.
It's not about what the irrelevant voters want; it's all about what TRUMP wants. And what Trump wants is what the GOP in the Senate want: power without limits or scope.

#47 | Posted by e1g1 at 2020-01-22 02:08 PM | Reply

With a lack of strong public support for removal, impeachment isn't going to get any Senate Republican votes and may likely even see a Senate Dem defector or three. It sucks but that's reality.
#40 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

So the public support as it relates to removal matters, but the public support (i.e., thread topic) as it relates to hearing witnesses does not?

How does that square up?

#48 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-22 02:34 PM | Reply

Beach,

Kindly point out where I've ever opposed witnesses being called in the Senate trial.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 02:40 PM | Reply

Kindly point out where I've ever opposed witnesses being called in the Senate trial.
#49 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I'm asking your interpretation of the Republican Senators attitude, which is what you were commenting on.

#50 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-22 02:47 PM | Reply

"Kindly point out where I've ever opposed witnesses being called in the Senate trial.
#49 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

^
#188 You are in no position to cry foul if the Senate emulates the House in regards to its impeachment hearings. What goes around comes around.
#190 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 03:15 PM | Reply

Can you name any names? I haven't seen anyone claim that witnesses shouldn't be called under any circumstance.

#46 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Mitch McConnell said it.

www.cnn.com

#52 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-23 01:07 PM | Reply

"Kindly point out where I've ever opposed witnesses being called in the Senate trial.
#49 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"
^
#188 You are in no position to cry foul if the Senate emulates the House in regards to its impeachment hearings. What goes around comes around.
#190 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
#51 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

In fairness, JeffJ has said he wants witnesses called and wants Trump removed on the first charge.

That said, JeffJ, your defense of the Senate rules is ridiculous. The House is not a trial forum. It's for finding grounds to send Impeachment Articles to the Senate. An alleged criminal doesn't get to cross examine and call witnesses when prosecutors or a grand jury are considering charges. The House is not supposed to turn over every stone. That's the Senate's job. The House only finds sufficient evidence to charge. The Constitution puts the Trial portion in the Senate.

They aren't supposed to have the same rules.

#53 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-23 01:32 PM | Reply

C'mon now, give Repubs some credit here.

At least their willing to find out what a POS they're voting for come November.

#54 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-01-23 04:21 PM | Reply

JBiden should make an offer to Trump: I'll testify if you do.

What do you think would happen then? LOL.........

#55 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-01-23 04:23 PM | Reply

Hunter Biden for John Bolton.
Deal?

#1 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2020-01-21 08:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Never.

#56 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-01-23 06:57 PM | Reply

#56

How about Bolton for Ciaramella?

#57 | Posted by willowby at 2020-01-23 07:53 PM | Reply

That said, JeffJ, your defense of the Senate rules is ridiculous. The House is not a trial forum. It's for finding grounds to send Impeachment Articles to the Senate. An alleged criminal doesn't get to cross examine and call witnesses when prosecutors or a grand jury are considering charges. The House is not supposed to turn over every stone. That's the Senate's job. The House only finds sufficient evidence to charge. The Constitution puts the Trial portion in the Senate.

They aren't supposed to have the same rules.

#53 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

The Constitution doesn't lay out rules for a House or Senate impeachment. That is to be determined by both governing chambers.

The Constitution does lay out that the House lays out articles of impeachment and the Senate then votes on what the House presents and takes into consideration what the Executive presents as a defense.

A narrow reading of how impeachment is spelled out suggests that the only witnesses to be called in the Senate are witnesses already called by the House, in order to seek clarification.

The House builds the case and the Senate tries said case. THAT is how it works.

I have no problem with new witnesses being called. I'm also OK with no new witnesses being called. NOTHING prevented the House from going to the courts to compel testimony or documents they believed they needed other that sheer political and partisan calculations. Well, that works both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The Democrats' bluster over any kind of "unfairness" in the Senate is brazenly hypocritical. Unfortunately for them, when it comes to these types of things McConnell is pretty far from being feckless and weak.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-24 07:19 AM | Reply

"Impeachment Poll: 71% of Republicans Want Witness Testimony"

So what? It's the other 29% that chooses the winner of primaries.

#59 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-01-24 08:55 AM | 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