Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[rogue06]

Do you think the difference in how the MSM reported them might have some influence on those numbers? To this day they intentionally misinform the public by telling us that Clinton's impeachment was about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. It wasn't. It was about his lying under oath (i.e., perjury) about the Paula Jones case. You know, the woman that Hillary and George Stephanopoulos' (now an ABC news anchor) "Nuts and Sluts War Room" was in charge of trying to intimidate into silence and, failing that, destroy?

[firstfloor]

Schumer talks to Rachel, 20 Dec. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000460268951

[rogue06]

Schumer talks to Rachel, 20 Dec. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000460268951

We wanted "witnesses" during the Schiff circus but instead we got nothing but disgruntled whining, hearsay gossips, and folks who were "guessing"

But let's compromise.


One witness.


Schiff

[Cow Poke]

Comforting that those who will conduct the trial have already decided the outcome. Seriously?

Seriously.

A) It's a POLITICAL process that was incredibly partisan (with the only bipartisanship being Democrats opposed)
2) It actually LOST public support the longer this sham went on
C) The Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump from DAY ONE
4) Schiff started his part with the total misrepresentation of "the phone call"
V) Nancy can't even decide what to do with the Articles of Impeachment

So, yeah - seriously.

[Cow Poke]

Was this a problem for you when the Democrats had decided the outcome of their part of the impeachment even before he took office? You certainly didn't express any misgivings. At least the Republicans have heard the evidence (weeks of televised hearings) before making a decision.

EGGzackly - and the House owns all aspects of the impeachment process, and the Senate owns all aspects of the convict/remove part.
There isn't a snowball's chance in the hot place of 67 senators voting to convict and remove, so... BACK TO WORK, shut down this sham.

[Cow Poke]

Schumer talks to Rachel, 20 Dec. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000460268951

Bless her heart for putting up with his crap.

[Mountain Man]

Schumer talks to Rachel, 20 Dec. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000460268951

They had their chance to get witnesses and documents during the House investigations, but they went ahead and voted to impeach without them. It's not the Senate's job to reinvestigate and try to make the Democrats' case for them.

[Sparko]

hanghim.jpg

[rogue06]

EGGzackly - and the House owns all aspects of the impeachment process, and the Senate owns all aspects of the convict/remove part.
There isn't a snowball's chance in the hot place of 67 senators voting to convict and remove, so... BACK TO WORK, shut down this sham.

The Senate's job is to determine the validity of the case brought by the House, not to retry the case because the House bungled it so badly.

[Mountain Man]

The Senate's job is to determine the validity of the case brought by the House, not to retry the case because the House bungled it so badly.

A vote to impeach is like an indictment. It's a prosecutor's formal declaration that he believes he has sufficient evidence to press charges and seek a conviction. If he gets to court and suddenly realizes that he's holding a weak hand, he doesn't get to ask the judge and jury to conduct a second investigation to help him reach a guilty verdict. For Schumer to demand the Senate seek out additional evidence is effectively an admission that the Democrats don't have a case

[lilpixieofterror]

The Senate's job is to determine the validity of the case brought by the House, not to retry the case because the House bungled it so badly.

Sounds like a case of morning after regret, where the Democrats are trying to silently walk out the door, hoping nobody notices, and make excuses for it later.

[Cow Poke]

A vote to impeach is like an indictment. It's a prosecutor's formal declaration that he believes he has sufficient evidence to press charges and seek a conviction.

It's actually more than that - it's not just his own belief, but it's accompanied by the fact that a panel of jurors was also convinced. (albeit, in this case, on an incredibly partisan basis, with the ONLY bipartisanship being Democrats crossing over and voting no)

If he gets to court and suddenly realizes that he's holding a weak hand, he doesn't get to ask the judge and jury to conduct a second investigation to help him reach a guilty verdict. For Schumer to demand the Senate seek out additional evidence is effectively an admission that the Democrats don't have a case

And for Schumer and Pelosi both to be attacking the guy who will be setting up the conditions for the trial is insane. It's another indication to some that the Democrats don't actually plan on officially transmitting the Articles to the Senate.

[Teallaura]

EGGzackly - and the House owns all aspects of the impeachment process, and the Senate owns all aspects of the convict/remove part.
There isn't a snowball's chance in the hot place of 67 senators voting to convict and remove, so... BACK TO WORK, shut down this sham.

No, no - drag it out until March! Muck up the campaigns of virtually every Democrat until AFTER Super Tuesday!!!



I'm not nice...

[rogue06]

It's another indication to some that the Democrats don't actually plan on officially transmitting the Articles to the Senate.

Speaker Pelosi has suggested that House Democrats may be too afraid, too afraid to even transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate. Mr. President it looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country and second guessing whether they even want to go to trial. They said that impeachment was so urgent that they could not even wait for due process but now they are sitting on their hands." --Mitch McConnell

[Teallaura]

The Senate's job is to determine the validity of the case brought by the House, not to retry the case because the House bungled it so badly.

Er, no. It's the Senate's job to try the case. It is occasionally necessary to ask for witnesses at trial that could not appear before the grand jury but allowing that is at the judge's discretion. Here, discretion belongs to the Senate.

In a normal proceeding, this isn't often granted to prosecution since they shouldn't have proceeded with an insufficient case.

McConnell should let Pelosi have her haggling until after Christmas, then demand/pull the articles and take a few weeks working out procedure/new drapes. Then start hearings on the evidence presented to the House - with most of the front runner Dems cooling their heels in the 'very solemn' trial while Super Tuesday passes them by.

Then vote.