Saying "overwhelming" enough times doesn't necessarily make something overwhelming.
On an incredibly partisan basis, the ONLY bipartisanship being Democrats voting against...
Remember, Nancy had insisted it had to be VERY bipartisan with OVERWHELMING public support. "Half" isn't overwhelming.
And, had the House developed this "more evidence", perhaps the House's vote would have been far less partisan, and public support would have been more than merely "half". But they were in SUCH A HURRY.... to then sit on the AoI for a month.
Vindictiveness? Isn't that rather presumptuous? You mean the Senate is being extremely partisan just like the House? Was the House, therefore, "vindictive"?
for the majority of the house,
the legal community and roughly half the population.
And, had the House developed this "more evidence", perhaps the House's vote would have been far less partisan, and public support would have been more than merely "half". But they were in SUCH A HURRY.... to then sit on the AoI for a month.
The only thing preventing the senate from hearing more evidence seems to be vindictiveness despite the polls showing 70% of the population wanting to hear it.
Comment