Impeachment

Mitch McConnell: This Is the 'Most Rushed, Least Thorough, and Most Unfair Impeachment Inquiry in Modern History'

The majority leader addressed the Senate the morning after President Donald Trump was officially impeached by the House of Representatives.

|

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) took to the Senate floor this morning to inveigh against what he called the "most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history."

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday night to impeach President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, making him the third president in U.S. history to move toward a Senate trial.

"Last night, House Democrats finally did what they have decided to do a long time ago," said McConnell. "They voted to impeach President Trump." The majority leader's speech echoed weeks of House GOP objections, accusing Democrats of searching for an impeachable offense before Trump even clinched the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

It is the "first purely partisan presidential impeachment since the wake of the Civil War," McConnell lamented. "Opposition to impeachment was bipartisan." The latter notion has become a go-to talking point among the GOP, although it neglects the fact that Justin Amash (I–Mich.), a founder of the House Freedom Caucus, left the Republican Party just last July in part over its unwillingness to grapple with what he sees as Trump's clearly impeachable offenses.

Two Democrats voted against the first article of impeachment and three voted against the second. One of the Democrats who voted against both, Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D–N.J.), has announced that he will leave the party and become a Republican.

McConnell tried to throw cold water on both of the articles, reducing the first charge—abuse of power—to what he says is a mere contempt on behalf of Democrats for Trump's style of governance.

"The Framers of our Constitution very specifically discussed this issue—whether the House should be able to impeach the president just for maladministration," said McConnell. "In other words, because the House simply thought the president had bad judgement or was doing a bad job."

Amash has argued that this comparison doesn't stand historical scrutiny. "[Alan] Dershowitz and many Rs have tried to conflate maladministration and abuse of power," he tweeted on Monday. "The Framers rejected maladministration—being ineffective or inefficient—as grounds for impeachment. In contrast, they saw abuse of power as central to the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors."

McConnell also claimed that impeachment should turn on "clear, recognizable crimes." That is historically inaccurate as well: "High crimes and misdemeanors" includes abuses of power, and even McConnell conceded this morning that meeting a criminal threshold is not a requirement for impeachment.

As for obstruction of Congress, McConnell likens the charge to impeaching the president "for asserting presidential privilege." Democrats argue that Trump inappropriately stonewalled their investigation when he blocked the release of requested documents and forbade several key witnesses—such as acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former National Security Advisor John Bolton—from testifying.

"That's not a constitutional crisis," said McConnell. "It's a routine occurrence."

The Kentucky senator criticized Democrats for what he says is a hasty rush forward. If the majority party wants to parse the information currently being obstructed by Trump, he said, they should take the issue to the courts, which may lead to documents being released and witnesses compelled to testify. McConnell isn't wrong here. As Jacob Sullum points out, the evidence as it stands may implicate Trump, but the record is almost certainly too thin at present to lure anyone from their partisan vantage points.

Democrats "chose to stick to their political timetable at the expense of pursuing more evidence through proper legal channels," said McConnell.

Looking to the future, he told Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) that Democrats are on the precipice of taking "unbelievable new power to paralyze the Senate at their whim." (The legislative body already has a strong record of doing that on its own, regardless of who is in charge.)

That crippling threat, McConnell declared, will come because Democrats were "willing to trample our constitutional order to get their way," leading to what he sees as a future string of never-ending impeachments. And it is only the Senate, McConnell argued, that is equipped to effectively and impartially check "violent factionalism."

"The moment the framers feared has arrived," he said. "A political faction in the lower chamber has succumbed to partisan rage." In the Federalist Papers, McConnell noted, Alexander Hamilton warned of an impeachment "regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." Few would dispute that partisanship has driven much of the impeachment process, but that phenomenon hardly seems unique to Democrats.

NEXT: Footnote 3 of Texas v. U.S. should be removed from the final published opinion

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Democrats do not want facts; they do not want the truth. The details would just as likely incriminate them (i.e. Biden, etc.) as Trump. This has never been about facts, or crimes, or due process, or fairness and that is why it has turned into an unmitigated disaster.

    Frankly, I think the Democrats just blew 2020. They couldn’t fail harder if they tried.

    1. It’s truly amazing because I firmly believe Trump would self-destruct if they just left him to his own devices for a little while.

      As it sits now, we’re in a “boy who cried wolf” situation. If Trump wins reelection he’ll be free to do essentially whatever he wants because the Democrats in Congress blew their wad over nothing.

      1. I think had the Democrats not gone insane, they could have worked with Trump and accomplished a lot while totally demoralizing his base and destroying his re-election chances. Fighting is Trump’s entire reason for existing. The whole reason people voted for him was they felt that Washington hated their guts and he was the only guy who would fight for their interests. So, the more the Democrats and Washington attacks him, the more he fights back and the more popular he is. Stop fighting with him and give him a few things, then no one has a reason to vote for him anymore and his combativeness just comes across as nasty and unPresidential.

        I am at a complete loss to explain why the Democrats were not smart enough to figure that out.

        1. This. By making him the enemy of all things DC they have been their own worst enemy.

          But much of the blame falls on their media enablers. Had the press been more equally critical of all parties then the Dems and the RINOs might have done things differently.

          The media have played like the Washington Generals and the DC establishment thought that made them actual political Globetrotters.

          1. But much of the blame falls on their media enablers. Had the press been more equally critical of all parties then the Dems and the RINOs might have done things differently.

            Indeed, Obama himself may have been a better President.

            1. Umm, No. Nice try, though.

              1. Obama practically had his presidency inside a media bubble where criticism against him was tuned down.

            2. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        2. Precisely.

          The Democrats went insane, however, for a simple reason; idiots like AOC and the squad are proliferating like roaches in densely populated blue states. They’re young, they’re ignorant, they lack tact, they have no historical perspective and, for the most part, they are aggressively socialist and appeal to an uncritical millennial generation.

          Geezers like Pelosi and Schumer are desperately trying to hold the entire shitbag together because their jobs are on the line, along with access to the corrupt gravy train that is Congress.

        3. Fighting is Trump’s entire reason for existing.
          I don’t know how anyone hasn’t figured this out. Too invested in their weird narratives about Nazis and Russians, I guess. I think you are right, if the Democrats had worked with Trump and not allowed him to be constantly in the mode that got him elected, they would be in a very different position.
          And they probably could have worked with him a lot. Trump isn’t very ideological and loves making deals. With the right combo of flattery and compromise, they could probably have done a lot with Trump.

          1. With the right combo of flattery and compromise, they could probably have done a lot with Trump.

            Which is exactly what the Saudi Crown Prince did for Trump’s state visit. Massive pomp, circumstance, and ass-kissing all around: with the effect of Trump pretty much ignoring any future chicanery the Kingdom would get up to in the remaining years of his first term, including locking up a good chunk of the royal family in house arrest in the Ritz-Carlton Riyadh. As well as continuing defense corporate welfare to the kingdom. The SA version of the F-15 looks absolutely amazing for a 4th-gen fighter.

            OTOH, the kingdom since then seems to have stopped most of the illicit support that ISIS was receiving, resulting in ISIS’s eventual demise.

            But you get much further with Trump telling him how great he is, and nudging him to the result that he thinks he’ll benefit most from, rather than constantly fighting and insulting the guy.

        4. Both parties view politics very much in moral terms. Trump is morally offensive to progressives that currently influence the Democratic party in a similar way that progressives are morally offensive to a lot of conservatives that currently influence the Republican party. When you view things as a moral struggle between good and evil, there really isn’t any room for compromise.

          I *think* that Republicans are better about approaching these types of fights strategically (although I wonder how they will react going forward post-Trump when there is a combative Democrat in the White House). And if this were the Democratic party of even 5-10 years ago the response may have been very different.

          As it stands, I think there are sane Democrats who realize that their strategy with regards to Trump is flawed. Even Nancy Pelosi seems to realize that. But I don’t think they believe that they can take a different approach without facing an uprising from their base, much like Republicans who don’t like Trump but are afraid of defying him openly.

          That doesn’t answer the question of why activists in both parties increasingly view politics almost purely through a moral lens. That’s a whole other discussion.

          1. As it stands, I think there are sane Democrats who realize that their strategy with regards to Trump is flawed. Even Nancy Pelosi seems to realize that. But I don’t think they believe that they can take a different approach without facing an uprising from their base, much like Republicans who don’t like Trump but are afraid of defying him openly.

            I wonder how the Democratic base got so radicalized?

            1. By living in a bubble and the media constantly telling them that everyone agreed with them.

              1. Also that anyone who didn’t agree with them was a hateful racist.

            2. It’s hardly just the Democratic base, although I think the Democratic party has temperamentally been more sympathetic to radical reformers since at least the 1960s. But both parties have been using culture war issues as wedge for some time now. There is something of a vicious cycle here — the electorate is culturally divided, so wedge issues are effective, which further divides people, which makes wedge issues even more effective…

              It’s a great strategy — until it isn’t. We’re seeing what happens when the beast grows too strong to control.

              I don’t find it useful to try to figure out who started it, either from an intellectual or pragmatic standpoint. You can always find one more link in the chain of alternating grievances until eventually you’ve gone so far into the past that the record just isn’t reliable. Either somebody is able to break the chain, or you end up like so many places in the world where people fight wars over something that happened centuries ago.

              1. I’m amazed that you think you’re saying something here

            3. The younger ones have been radicalized by Marxist teachers and professors throughout all levels of education.

              1. The younger ones have been radicalized by Marxist teachers and professors throughout all levels of education.

                Agreed, which is why a brilliant stroke by Trump would be to re-allow discharge of student loans in bankruptcy. Students would rejoice and higher education would be holed below the waterline. Lenders would en masse flee the market, or demand safeguards before lending whatever obscene 6 figure amount it takes for a private four-year university education.

                I’m guessing the STEM profs will do quite a bit better than Victims Studies professors. Or ‘X’-American Studies or History.

                I don’t think the Democrat party could hope to win in Congress in 2020 if around 25 percent of the Bernie Bros defected because Trump was going to let them wipe away their defaulted loans. Of course, they’d need to reform Biden’s 2004 Bankruptcy Act to make Chapter 7 a real possibility again in consumer bankruptcies.

                Win-win. Beats a jubilee, or another gigantic government program.

                1. The schools wouldn’t give a rats ass. They already have their money. The debt has all been assumed by the Federal government.

                  We’re that not the case you’d have a point, but we also would not be where we are at today.

                  1. You don’t think the FedGov would go after the schools to try to claw back payments as a ‘preference’ creditor to the student debtor, even though the payments to the school probably go back further than the usual 90 days or 1 year period? I’m not so sure.

                    Even if FedGov couldn’t get past payments, their current and future payment streams would be choked off. Of course, the schools would just turn around and favor foreign students even more than currently…

            4. Twitter…that is how dems turned and are turning into socialists and have this parasite growth within the dem party. They got a platform and followers who blindly agree with and follow them. The socialist and their followers believe Twitter is the real world and to hell with anyone who disagrees.

          2. I think conservatives would do well with a combative president as since their values as far as I can figure is to preserve every single person whose ever existed in politics has fought to undermine that at some point also Christian values and conservative values have been fodder for lampooning since the dawn of time in both popular media and in politics(bitter clingers/jesus freaks) forever.

          3. (although I wonder how they will react going forward post-Trump when there is a combative Democrat in the White House)

            I think there will be blood. The obvious first move by the next post-Trump Democrat is to open the floodgates on immigration and amnesty. Demographics is destiny, and the newcomers vote D anywhere from 3-1 on up. With that, you can kiss goodbye any shot at an R majority in either house. Finally, with an expanded population, the federal judiciary really does need to be expanded. That probably won’t go immediately to SCOTUS court-packing, but I can see increased number of judges appointed to the various circuits, as well as districts: all of which will help ameliorate McConnell’s excellent work in filling judicial vacancies.

            It would have already happened had Hil won. I see no reason why their work would cease with Trump out of power. Again, it will lead to blood, but the prospect of that hardly seems to slow down the AOC wing, or even the new Democrat leadership in Virginia.

            (Aside, pay real close attention to VA. Legislature ‘Lobbying Day’ on 1/20/2000: Virginia has several gun control bills ready to be approved, and gun owners are planning to have a 10-50,000 person protest march. This could easily get out of hand.)

            1. Demographics is destiny

              No, it isn’t.

              If that were true blue collar workers would still be voting for labor Democrats.

              Republicans might have more luck with immigrants if they were more welcoming.

              Also, the US Supreme Court has had 9 justices since 1869, when the population was 39 million. The country has grown by 290 million people with no growth in the Supreme Court. *If* the court grows, it’s not going to be due to an increase in immigration.

              1. Democrats don’t have blue collar workers because they despise them and do nothing for them.

              2. And Republicans do fairly well with certain sectors of immigrants. And second generation immigrants, but I think that was your point.

                1. They do? Show me the stats. Because every time someone like Pew goes around and actually asks people who they’ll vote for, immigrants, be they new or second generation, vote D 3-1. African, Latin American, Asian (Sw, Central, East: it doesn’t matter.): all of them.
                  See, e.g., this 2014 study from pew: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/among/immigrant-status/immigrants/

                  1st gen Cubans vote R. After that, ehhhh.

                  The only reason blue collar formerly Union whites no longer are reliable D votes is because they feel they’ve been sold out. Via outsourcing, offshoring, de facto importation of a peasant class, and now, with Mike Lee H1-B bill, tech workers will get to enjoy more wage stagnation too.
                  Further, those voters are Trump voters, not Republican or, LOL, Libertarian voters.

                  Try it. Break open the borders. See if the country gets more Libertarian and free market friendly or if it devolves to low-trust, big-government Socialism. It has nothing to do with the race of our new citizens, and everything to do with their preexisting culture that, unlike prior generations, the dominant culture is uninterested in having the newcomers assimilate.

                  1. Oh, and on SCOTUS, if 2024 comes around, Trump has replaced RBG, Breyer, and Thomas. I guarantee you a Democratic Party with both houses and the presidency, will pack the Court before the 1st term ends.

                    These people aren’t playing any more. They’re fanatics, and their hatred of Trump has given them the moral permission to hate all of those other people who support Trump: who are interfering with them establishing Utopia. The ordinary rules of decorum and governmental practice are slipping away. Or was the Kavanaugh hearing not unusual?

              3. More people, especially more immigration, means more government.
                This “Republicans aren’t welcoming of immigrants” is a bullshit narrative, unless you think anything short of explicit pandering and subconscious segregating is unwelcoming.
                The Ds have a near monopoly on media, including arts and academia, thus they have the deck stacked for them from an advertising standpoint. This massive marketing advantage is only augmented by the fact that their sales pitch consists of fast and easy answers.
                Why are urban centers overwhelmingly leftist? Because life in the city isn’t self reliant and involves being surrounded by things that need servicing.
                All of which creates a shallow pool of impressions that leads to bullshit being embraced, as LynchPin has demonstrated.
                More people = more government
                More government = “progress”
                But hey, at least such progress means you get to keep bitching about “both sides” and pretending it’s some sort of principled stance.

                1. Urban centers are not overwhelmingly leftist. At least not when you look at voting patterns around the world.

        5. Everybody loves an underdog. You’d think those geniuses in Hollywood would know that.

        6. John, I totally agree. I imagine a psychologist might be bebinclined to diagnose trump as a narcissist. The best way I know of to tick a narcissist off is to just ignore him. Fighting is what they love the most, and they are just feeding his ego because in his own eyes, and in the eyes of most of his supporters, Trump has not yet been wrong.

          1. That’s the point.

            Trump is as simple as anyone has ever been. He is Tit for Tat Game Theory in a suit. That is all he does. He does Tit for Tat, and everything is negotiable, even after the handshake.

            So if Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer had sucked up to Trump and told Trump how great he was they could have passed any legislation they wanted let him put his name on it and gotten everything they ever wanted.

            As long as you say Trump is great, Trump will say you are great. I don’t understand why this is hard to figure out. The second that you say Trump is anything other than great, Trump will denigrate you incessantly.

            But apparently the Democrats are too partisan and too stupid to understand how the game Trump is playing works. Because his game is so simple, you can win without really putting in any effort at all.

            1. True to an extent.
              You’re correct about the approach, but Trump knows what he wants and won’t give in unless he gets it.
              Yes, there is a lot the Ds could’ve worked with him on, but they would’ve had to work at it and wouldn’t have gained the upper hand as easily as assumed.
              The problem, for them, working with Trump (and not self-immolating in psychotic tantrums) was that Trump is everything progressivism and the “elite” are opposed to.
              His very election is a repudiation of the idea that anybody in DC is inherently capable or has actual value outside their politics country club.
              Doing the smart thing, calmly opposing things they disagreed with while supporting things they agreed with, would have been too risky… because deep down they know that they aren’t special, that the system supports them not the other way around, and that Trump might succeed.
              Their only hope at this point is mutual destruction

        7. You can’t cooperate with super-Hitler!

      2. On the flip side there are some (those who think Trump is really smart & playing 4-D chess, etc..) who truly believe this whole impeachment scenario was orchestrated by Trump himself because (1) He did not want to face Biden, who Trump rightly believes is the only Dem Clown that can beat him & (2) He knows he will not be removed & (3) The whole thing will energize his base, & turn off swing voters.

        Makes no sense to me though because this impeachment is only happening because that DEEP STATE POS Prog-Tard made the complaint about the call…If Trump planned this whole thing that means he was in bed with that guy….Highly unlikely!

        1. No, the opposition to Trump is just really, really, really incompetent.
          That’s why they hate him.

    2. “Frankly, I think the Democrats just blew 2020.”

      Wrong. Democrats will win the Presidency in 2020 and retain their House majority. My prediction record is excellent — I called a #BlueWave in 2018 and impeachment in 2019 — and this is my main guarantee for next year.

      1. That’s your claim to accurate predictions??? It’s pretty standard when the executive switches parties that the other party gains momentum for the midterms. Your other prediction is just proof that your Dem majority has been looking for an excuse since the 2016 election! Anybody with half a brain could’ve made those predictions!

      2. Are you the OBL or its evil leftist twin? If the former, this one is a little too subtle. If not, f off, slaver!

        1. It’s subtle humor. I recognize this as OBL material.

    3. So the guys asking for key witnesses to testify do not want the truth, but the guys preventing said witnesses from testifying do want the truth? How’s the weather in bizarro world?

      1. There’s a process for getting people who don’t want to testify to testify. It involves courts.

        Can you think of any reasons why the Democrats might not want any of this to see an actual, functional court room?

        1. Checks and balances and thus the power of congress to subpoena is so well established, to challenge it is an obvious ploy. Indeed we see two courts ruling against the president so far, and it is very unlikely the supreme court rules differently.

          So why would the president challenge a 200 year old precedent? Because that is what Trump does. Spurious legal arguments and delay tactics meant to bankrupt your opponent. It’s what he did back when he was a bum developer, so it’s what he’s doing now. Instead of bankrupting his opponent, he wants to out wait his supporters tiny attention span. It is ridiculous to suggest that democrats are the problem here because they won’t wait for Trump’s silly game.

          It seems the president does not want the testimony of witnesses to see the light of day. The people who say Trump abused his powers have testified under oath. The people who say Trump is innocent will not testify under oath. That should tell you something.

          1. “”Checks and balances and thus the power of congress to subpoena is so well established,””

            The principle of executive privilege is also well established. The specifics not so much which is why SCOTUS occasionally gets a case involving it. But no president has been impeached because SCOTUS shot down the executive privilege claim. Therefore an invalid claim of executive privilege does not automatically become obstruction of congress.

          2. Go away Jeff, you are just embarrassing yourself.

            1. Pedo Jeffy is even pretending to be a SF vet now.

          3. “So why would the president challenge a 200 year old precedent? Because that is what Trump does.”

            LOL. so much philosophizing

            “That should tell you something.”

            The movie in your head must drive you crazy, and I fucking love it. Please continue to detail your woes.

          4. You stupidly believe the congressional subpoena power is unchecked. A dumber assertion could not be made.

            1. De Oppresso Liber Is an intelligent human.

              Pretty sure that would be a dumber assertion.

          5. Checks and balances works both ways idiot. And the courts are part of that check and balances. If the Democrats really wanted to uphold their subpoenas the courts were exactly who should decide which side as right. The President is not subservient to the legislative branch. Try again.

          6. It is ridiculous to suggest that democrats are the problem here because they won’t wait for Trump’s silly game.

            But they have to play the hand they are dealt. They could have slowed down the process in the House and gone through the courts. There were people recommending exactly that. But they wanted to move quickly for political reasons.

            Now, Republicans in the Senate are making their own political calculations. If Democrats honestly believed that wouldn’t be the case, then they were being very naive.

          7. So the entire reason for avoiding courts is “it’s faster this way”?

            Seems legit.

          8. My Democrat brother-in-law posted that crap in your last paragraph on his facebook. Apparently it’s making the rounds among the faithful lefto-fascists. Chanting is good for the soul, I suppose, but has no reference to reality. Much like everything you just claimed above.

            1. Jeffey gets Media Matters talking points emailed to him, your brother-in-law probably does the same.
              They need reminders of what to think.

          9. Yes, Congress’s power to subpoena *is* well established. So is the President’s power to oppose those subpoenas. Sometimes the Courts side with the President, sometimes the Courts side with Congress.

            Which is a pity, because Congress never got around to subpoenaing Trump Administration officials or documents. They merely asked nicely, and when the Trump Administration said “Go get a subpoena, and we’ll fight it out in court”, Congresscritters called that “Obstruction of Justice”.

            Frankly, I would consider it a greater travesty of justice had President Trump meekly caved, rather than stand up for himself!

        2. “Can you think of any reasons why the Democrats might not want any of this to see an actual, functional court room?”

          Yes I can: So, the world may see the litany of crimes Quid Pro Joe committed in the Ukraine & elsewhere!

      2. Except they’ve made clear that they only want some witnesses to testify. There’s a number that attempted to rule out testifying.

        1. They want witnesses to testify, they do not want Hunter Biden or the whistle blower to testify. Let’s try to keep the trial on topic, right? Why are republicans and the president so desperate to keep actual witnesses from testifying? Not because their testimony would exonerate the president, I assure you.

          1. “Let’s try to keep the trial on topic, right? ”

            You mean like the topic of the phone call?

            GOTCHA BITCH

          2. Yeah, why would proper motivation ever get brought up in a trial abuse abuse of power. Totally separate Jeff. You say stupid shit.

          3. Legally speaking, there is no whistleblower; there is an anonymous informer. A quisling.

          4. Why are the ones you named not legitimate witnesses?

            1. Because they might be embarrassing for his precious Democrats, silly!

          5. Your assurances mean nothing Pedo Jeffy. Unless you were assuring me that you love child molesters. That would be believable.

      3. “Let the FBI come in if you have nothing to hide”

        Seen here at a supposed libertarian website

        Keep licking boots and losing arguments

        1. “The president is all power and there are no co eual branches of government” -Ryan, the fake libertarian.

          This isn’t a criminal case. This is checks and balances. Congress does not need a warrant to conduct oversight.

          Keep being functionally moronic.

          1. and the senate doesn’t have to call a single witness. Mitch can chop up and snort the articles of impeachment, call votes, fart in your mouth, and move on with his life.

            Now what?

          2. Are you too fucking stupid to understand the balance part? Executive is not subservient to the legislative.

          3. And the President is not required to submit to them, that is what equal means.

          4. Fine. The president, like all free citizens, cannot be compelled to testify without a criminal charge.

          5. They don’t need a warrant for oversight…

            But they do need a court to assert their power of subpoena.

      4. Of they wanted the truth they could have gone to the courts like other Congresses did when a plea of privilege was wrongly made. You are quite fucking ignorant.

      5. Did the Dems want certain witnesses? Yes. Did they ask those witnesses to speak? Yes. Did the witnesses testify? No.

        Thus the impasse and a rational look is required to parse out who is right and wrong here. So far, based on those three facts there is no obstruction, thus, more needs to be compiled for it to be considered obstruction.

        Does there exist a mechanism for the Dems to counter the claim of Executive Privilege? Yes, the courts. Did they take the time to do this? No, they claimed expediency was paramount AND that the simply CLAIM of privilege was literally a cover-up in and of itself. Did they continue their claim for expediency by passing the articles in the House? Yes. Did they put their money where their mouth was and send the articles to the Senate where the Senate, a separate and independent chamber, can do their job how they see fit? No, expediency stopped at the doorstep of failure. As such, the claim of expediency and emergency are no longer actually valid defenses of not going the prescribed route to resolve a dispute over executive privilege. That brings us back to “Why didn’t the House use the tools at their disposal to get these very witnesses they now claim to be essential? If they were that essential, why didn’t they do what it took to get them to testify?” The only answer offered is the now-disproved claim of expediency and emergency, which leaves nothing but partisan posturing on their part as they are the only ones who have taken an action at this point.

        1. Where’s Pod and de oppressor libel to explain why that quote isn’t problematic?

          1. And the l instead of an r was intentional.

      6. De Oppresso Liber
        December.19.2019 at 12:57 pm
        “…How’s the weather in bizarro world?”

        You tell us. Fucking lefty scum spends more than three years, HOPING to find something and now they run the guy up on a late library book return.
        Proud of yourself, scum?

      7. Trump is claiming executive privilege and I think he’s justified because the Democrats are just looking for something, and he was quite transparent in the Mueller investigation. So the House should have gone to the court to get testimony of these witnesses. They want to go on a fishing expedition in a trial now because they’ve got nothing.
        At this point, I don’t see why any evidence beyond what the House has in their reports should be admitted in a trial, and after the prosecution has rested, the defense can call the witnesses it wants.
        Trump and McConnell should promise the Democrats the Senate majority party will be as fair as the House majority was in their impeachment proceedings. And let’s see how Pelosi likes that.

        It’s also pretty amazing Pelosi has taken it upon herself to not transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, over the votes of the House.

    4. Fresh from the democratic leadership…

      “Let’s give him a fair trial, and hang him,” Clyburn said.

      1. I thought this was an internet made-up thing (like so much in life)… until I went and just watched the video from CNN.

        He did, actually, say those words verbatim.

        Wow… just wow.

        1. See my above comment, it was meant to be in reply to you.

  2. Well it was rushed, they didn’t wait for any witnesses who with direct knowledge subpoenas to come through. And it is unfair as it’s political and no actual us statute was violated or court order defied and the money made it to the Ukraine before the deadline Congress mandated it. They are trying to prosecute someone on a crime that doesn’t exist based on circumstantial evidence and guessing intent.

    1. Why, I wonder, did we never hear from those key wintesses?

      Oh, that’s right. The totally innocent ™ president ordered them to ignore subpoenas. A classic Trump tactic of delaying or avoiding responsibility. Very similar to what he does when he stiffs a hardworking American contractor on one of his buildings, back when he was allowed to build things. Literally hundreds of cases like this in Trump’s record.

      1. things must be witnessed for witnesses to be

        1. So why can’t we hear from Mulvaney, Bolton, etc.? Why did Trump order them to not testify? Why are you suddenly completely unskeptical of presidential power?

          1. because according to you its not a criminal case and therefore no one is required to testify.

            Keep crying though this is fun

            1. It’s a political case. It’s a criminal case. It varies depending on the argument being made.

              It’s classic “If-by-whiskey” situation:

              “My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, this is how I feel about whiskey:

              If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

              But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

              This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”

              1. Shes my daughter! Shes my sister!

                Your opening line reminded me of that great movie.

                And it is so apropos right now… when thinking of all the shit that is passing as normal right now in DC ai have to remind myself it’s just Chinatown.

          2. Probably for the same reason why President Obama refused to let his Attorney General Eric Holder release documents about Operation Fast and Furious, even though (1) Congress actually got a subpoena, (2) the Courts upheld the subpoena, and (3) Congress found Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

            Surely, if President Trump should be impeached for this, then President Obama should have been impeached too!

      2. your tears are delicious and warm my heart

        Please continue to pronounce your impotence

        1. You must have a very sad life.

          1. I’m not the one with shit arguments defending the people trying to overturn an election, I feel great.

            you on the other hand, keep losing.

            1. Fail

          2. De Oppresso Liber
            December.19.2019 at 1:17 pm
            “You must have a very sad life.”

            When called on your bullshit, you claim OTHERS have a sad life?
            Is that a VOX talking point? You’re entirely too stupid to have thought of it yourself; where did you get it?

          3. Peep Jeffy, at least we’re not some punk ass kid who loves child molesters and has to resort to sock puppets galore just to comment here. You valor stealing piece of garbage.

            I really hope you die horribly. Preferably raped to death by cartel thugs.

        2. +100

          Look at <i?pod back up the sock troll de oppresso Liber

      3. In the Nixon non-impeachment and the Clinton impeachment, there was a mountain of evidence each time. Executive privilege was claimed both times, and privilege claims were adjudicated by the Courts both times.

        What do we have today? We have bupkis. There is testimony from bureaucrats who directly witnessed nothing illegal. Some low level committee staffers testified. Big Whoop. The point is, Team D could have taken the time to build that evidentary case, having the judiciary branch to adjudicate the dispute. They deliberately chose not to. No, Team D pushed this to make a political point, and get a little political payback (literally voting within one day of Slick Willie getting impeached…coincidental, I am sure).

        Now that we know there are no rules, I am really looking forward to POTUS Trump absolutely destroying whomever the Team D nominee is. Personally, I hope the Team D nominee is Brain-Damaged Biden, so I can see him humiliated and crushed on national TV by POTUS Trump, not to mention the other Team D candidates.

        1. You forgot to add that the same witnesses, when asked where they got the idea that something actually illicit occurred, all answered, effectively “Uh… I made it up?”

          1. Funny how once it got to being under oath and real legal proceedings their story changed. They were much more confident in what they had seen when it was friendly media asking them about it.

      4. You keep saying stupid and ignorant shit. Every president has denied subpoenas due to privilege you fucking retard.

      5. What are you talking about? It’s not clear they have to appear at all. The democrats can assert whatever tool they wanted to get the presidents men to testify by defunding the gov till they get what they want or battling the subpoenas in court. If they won in court and the president still told them to not comply they’d have a solid case of obstruction which is actually a crime. Also why would you willingly put yourself on the stand and face a possible perjury trap? what are you even talking about?

        1. First they would have had to issue subpeonas which they didn’t even do, because they would have to have fought it in court. Makes you wonder how confident they were in their case.

  3. “…Justin Amash (I–Mich.), a founder of the House Freedom Caucus, left the Republican Party just last July in part over its unwillingness to grapple with what he sees as Trump’s clearly impeachable offenses.”

    This example just reinforces McConnell’s statements instead of undercuts them. July was a good two months before the Ukraine inquiry occurred, back when obstruction over the Mueller investigation was the go-to argument. It’s not proof of bipartisan support for the actual articles of impeachment as much as it is proof that the entire inquiry was an impeachment in search of a crime. Amash had his mind made up in July, the dems had theirs made up in Nov 2016.

    1. Excellent point!

    2. Well said.

      Also; “Justin Amash (I–Mich.), a founder of the House Freedom Caucus”
      How does this loser get so much free advertising from the magazine. Does he have compromising photos of Gillespie in a white sweater vest and boaters?

  4. Of course he’d say that. We don’t call him #MoscowMitch for nothing.

    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

    1. More like #UkrainianMitch as it’s clear the Ukraine is impacting our elections even moreso than the Russians.

    2. We ….

      How many of you are in that sock?

      1. His name is Legion.

        1. Professor X’s bastard kid?

          1. Trust Buttplug not to get a biblical reference.

  5. Anybody remember what happened in the elections immediately following the Clinton impeachment?

    I do.

    1. They didn’t go well for Republicans. They were not a total disaster but they were not good, especially for a party out of power in the midterms of a second term presidency.

      And the Republicans actually had a case against Clinton that people at least found interesting even if they didn’t think he should be impeached over it. Here, the Democrats don’t even have that.

      1. That’s the core Dem problem.

        With Clinton, the GOP simply could say “He lied. Under oath. To a grand jury. And he asked OTHERS to also lie. under oath. to the same grand jury/”

        Simple. Easy to understand.

        Do the same for the Trump allegation. It’s impossible.

        And, again, it’s HILARIOUS that Schiff was so angry that Trump “tried to get foreign help to smear his political rivals” WHEN SCHIFF DID EXACTLY THAT HIMSELF.

        1. Of course, this assumes getting foreign help to smear political rivals is even unethical, let alone a crime.

          1. Well, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee certainly didn’t have a problem with it in 2016.

    2. short-url

      The 106th Congress Jan 3, 1999 to Jan 3, 2001 had a GOP Senate majority go from 55 seats to 50. The GOP controlled House went from 228 seats to 221. The Democrats ended up with 211 seats plus two Independents.

  6. writing fiction for money must be fun.

  7. Few would dispute that partisanship has driven much of the impeachment process, but that phenomenon hardly seems unique to Democrats.

    Well, in this instance we are taking about Democrat’s purely partisan motives right now, so the above line from the article is stupid. Other than that, good article

    1. It wouldn’t be Reason with out at least one both sides/to be sure.

  8. “Opposition to impeachment was bipartisan.” The latter notion has become a go-to talking point among the GOP, although it neglects the fact that Justin Amash (I–Mich.), a founder of the House Freedom Caucus, left the Republican Party just last July in part over its unwillingness to grapple with what he sees as Trump’s clearly impeachable offenses.

    This is amazingly dumb. If Amash had stayed with the GOP, THEN you could say the opposition was bipartisan. But he left, either because he was looking for any old excuse or because his TDS was at fatal levels. He doesn’t stay an honorary Republican just because you want the impeachment to be bipartisan. Good lord.

    1. sorry, *you could say the impeachment was bipartisan

    2. Yeah Billy really needs to grow up on this one.

      1. Thats gonna be hard at reason. There are no role models that work tehre.

      2. He goes by billy. He will never grow up.

        1. That, and the constant pain in his feet…oh, sorry.

  9. Unfair? no

    Stupid? yes

    Reason supported? yes

    Reason is stupid? yes

  10. If Pelosi does not send the articles on to the Senate is Trump actually impeached?

    1. The Senate does not need anything from the House.

      The GOP majority in the US Senate can call a trial/vote anytime they want.

      Its all coming down to strategy for the GOP. Acquit Trump before Christmas via quick up and down vote…Drag a trial out to disturb Democrat reelection efforts… hold a quick trial and subpoena as many Democrats as possible to lock them into a story under oath.

      1. I think Trump is all in for #3. Unless he is playing that 3D chess again.

      2. Just so long as McConnell and Graham don’t try and strong arm Trump into going along with their RINO bullshit in the process.

    2. Yep. Sending over the impeachment articles to the senate via managers is a rule or custom, but not required for an actual impeachment. The needed votes, delivered, achieve impeachment.

      As to Pelosi’s delay-stunt in sending them to the senate until she feels warm and fuzzy, she stops nothing. The senate could just pass a resolution…stating, e.g., that had the articles been forwarded…no conviction would have followed.

      Something to that effect.

    3. Yep. Sending over the impeachment articles to the senate via managers is a rule or custom, but not required for an actual impeachment. The needed votes, delivered, achieve impeachment.

      As to Pelosi’s delay-stunt in sending them to the senate until she feels warm and fuzzy, she stops nothing. The senate could/will pass a resolution…stating, e.g., that had the articles been forwarded…no conviction would have followed.

      Something to that effect.

    4. If the other comments are correct that the House finished their job last night and it is, technically, in the hands of the Senate right now then Mitch ought to get the ball rolling right in Pelosi’s face… right as she cries “We’re not giving you are toys!”

    5. Yeah, he was impeached when the vote was recorded. The Senate doesn’t need Pelosi to send them any paperwork to proceed, though. They can just set a date, and tell the house that they can send someone to argue the case or not. If nobody shows up to argue the point, the Senate can dismiss it.

      -jcr

      1. The smart move would be to use the trial to out the de o rats in trial. I would subpoena Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, etc. and out them under oath. Then grill the living shit out of them. The goal being to get them to perjury themselves or maybe even accidentally admit to another crimes. As these idiots aren’t that bright. It’s also a great opportunity to destroy the Bidens, and other deserving democrats.

      2. “They can just set a date, and tell the house that they can send someone to argue the case or not. If nobody shows up to argue the point, the Senate can dismiss it.”

        Assuming the articles are now in the Congressional Record I’d tend to agree with that assessment.

  11. Team D has brought shame, disgrace and dishonor to this country.

    Our elected leaders in Washington cannot settle their differences. Therefore We the People will settle this in November 2020. Can’t wait.

    1. If only Sudoku were an acceptable practice in our culture we would solve this problem.

      Yes… I know I said Sudoku. I’m not about to look up how to spell the real thing.

        1. Bukkake?

  12. A thorough impeachment trial in the Senate, with Trump’s side calling witnesses of their choosing, including those who know what really went on in Ukraine in 2014, would be a disaster for the criminals who occupy the US Senate. Just what would Americans think if they knew that those Maidan snipers – who killed protesters and police on both sides from rooftops – were working for US?

    That’s why Senator Lindsey Graham does not want a thorough trial.

    1. Man, this is straight up Russian propaganda.

      1. So, Pod is Joseph McCarthy…

        Except McCarthy was actually accurate in several of his claims.

        1. Joe McCarthy was one of America’s greatest heroes. Working tirelessly to destroy people like Pod.

      2. It really isn’t

        1. Soon, to the left, Hitler won’t be Hitler.

          1. Hitler betrayed Stalin, the Left will never forgive him.

          2. 2024 progressives: the holocaust is just Russian propaganda

      3. “Man, this is straight up Russian propaganda.”

        How old are you, really? 15?
        Can’t possibly be so stupid as this much beyond that, even as a victim of government schools.

        1. He’s even dumber.

      4. Fail.

    2. Maidan McCain was a monster who spoke at rallies in Ukraine for LITERAL neo Nazis

  13. “Our elected leaders in Washington cannot settle their differences. Therefore We the People will settle this in November 2020. Can’t wait.”

    And some of them certainly do not want a repeat of 2016; which is precisely what all of this is about, timing and all.

    BTW, where is The Rev with all his blather about our “betters?” Must be on the down side of his manic depressive illness.

    1. Really, so it’s about stopping Trump getting reelected, eh?

      Well that conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense for two reasons. Of course Dems knew the Senate is run by Trump fluffing toadies so they would never remove him and second everyone knew impeachment is very risky politically, there is no guarantee that it would give Dems an advantage in 2020, in fact it could do the opposite.

      So maybe you should look into the motivations of the Republicans. Where they operating in good faith to uphold the Constitution? Or where they protecting Trump at all costs because all they care about is power and preserving the GOP?

      1. ‘were’

        Hate it when I do that

      2. “Conspiracy theory,” “Trump fluffing toadies,” ….. balanced analysis. I’m sure everyone here not named chemjeff is seating on the edge of their seats.

        1. Cool, neat red herring you latched on to.

          So what do you think about Trump refusing to allow his people to testify? They knew all about is perfect call and the policy behind it, one would think Trump would want them to testify, they would have exonerated him, right?

          1. So what do you think about Trump refusing to allow his people to testify?

            I think we have a third branch to adjudicate those disputes. Didn’t happen.

            1. Sure

              But why wouldn’t Trump WANT them to testify? He said he was innocent, his people were there for all of it. They would exonerate him, right?

              You would think Trump would DEMAND they testify, unless……

              1. Because it isn’t his job to prove his innocence. In fact, you could argue that defendant’s job is to make it as hard as possible for the prosecution to prove guilt.

              2. You don’t understand how this “burden of proof” thing works, do you?

                1. He does. He’s just trying to gaslight people – which, I suppose, is a step up from trying to light his farts on fire.

          2. Why would a guy elected into his position of power, use said power?

            let’s all take a good five years and ponder…

          3. Where does it say in the Constitution that the executive branch has to testify? How many other Presidents have used executive privilige? Which branch of the government rules on conflicts between the executive and legis branches?

            1. When you have a living Constitution … it can say anything you want it to.

              1. Penumbras. Got to be the penumbras.

          4. Why would Joe Biden object to an investigation of his son’s relationship with Burisma? Surely it would have concluded that neither Hunter Biden nor his father had done anything wrong, right?

            And why would Hillary object to Trump calling for the Russians to release her missing emails, if they had them? She told us herself they consisted of nothing but yoga routines and Chelsea’s wedding plans. How would that have been any help to Trump?

          5. Didn’t we litigate that earlier in this thread? Seem like a few libertarians aren’t comfortable with “what’s wrong with testifying if you have nothing to hide?”. So what are YOU doing here (besides being absolutely irrelevant, that is.)?

        2. Yeah, Trump fluffing toadies.

          McConnell said that despite an oath to conduct a fair and impartial trial, he is going to coordinate 100% with Trump.

          1. Like Daschle did with Clinton? OK. Shocking.

            1. I don’t recall Daschle saying he was going to coordinate 100% with Clinton.

              1. …yet he did. Weird, huh?

              2. Fuck off jeff.

              3. Who among us is surprised?

          2. Merrick Garland, peace be upon him, wishes he could have had the same

          3. GeneS
            December.19.2019 at 2:34 pm
            “Yeah, Trump fluffing toadies….”

            You lost, loser. You and she LOST.
            Grow up and get over it. And seek help for your TDS, shitbag.

          4. This is a political process which by design makes fair and impartial questionable.

            The fact the dems are calling some republicans non-partial shows how partisan it is. I’m sure there are dem Senators that are not impartial either. But let’s not focus on them.

          5. I thought it was a political process? Suddenly … it has to be fair and impartial?

            Get the fuck out of here, Jeff.

          6. A better argument for recusal would be against Schumer for plotting obstruction of the impeachment process with Pelosi.

      3. “So maybe you should look into the motivations of the Republicans.”

        You mean their motivation to sit back, laugh, and push through dozens of judges?

        1. Yep, exactly that.

          All they care about is power, they do not care if Trump is an amoral con man, crook and traitor.

          They just want to cement a permanent conservative hegemony, and they don’t care if they destroy our constitutional republic in the process and neither do you I’d wager.

          1. Now do the Democrats who barred the GOP from calling their own witnesses, refused to get a court subpeona, restricted the questions Republicans could ask the Democrats hand picked witnesses, rushed the process and are now refusing to send the articles to the Senate unless McConnell agrees to their terms.

            1. Oh and don’t forget that they started calling for his impeachment before be was even sworn in.

              1. Heck, as Cocaine Mitch pointed out, even before he got in the race!

          2. “…and they don’t care if they destroy our constitutional republic in the process”

            And you wouldn’t do the same to get what you want? You’re just having a melt down over the death of your progressive little dreams.

            Sure Trump is whatever nom du jour you want to conger; but given the choices we had and have again for 2020, I am much happier. Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland? Any day, bitch.

          3. Explain how appointing judges is a destruction of our Constitution?

          4. How exactly is conservatism destroying our republic? No platitudes, please. Actual fact.

          5. Cry more.

          6. Conservative hegemony. By insisting on constitutional procedures. You can’t make this stuff up.

          7. The exact same thing can be said about Democrats, and of you: “All they care about is power, they do not care if Hillary is an amoral con woman, crook and traitor. They just want to cement a permanent progressive hegemony, and they don’t care if they destroy our constitutional republic in the process and neither do you I’d wager.”

            1. This GeneS character is hilarious.
              Keep sending em on down, brock!

          8. “…they do not care if Trump is an amoral con man, crook and traitor…”

            Lefty fucking ignoramuses make this or similar statements as if it has been established in other than their fantasies.
            Grow up, loser; you and she LOST!

          9. “”they do not care if Trump is an amoral con man, crook and traitor.””

            DC is all about amoral con men, crooks and traitors. If Congress really cared they would all resign.

        2. A dozen will be confirmed today. Then after the recess is done, starting in January, scores more district judges will be confirmed.

          1. Fuck yeah; read em an weep progressive authoritarian assholes. From my perspective Trump, in spite of himself, is the best thing that has happened to a constitutional republic since 1788.

            1. To me, that is the most fitting response. Oh, you want to delay and play games with impeachment? Ok, no problem dickweeds. We will simply confirm judges until every fucking Article III vacancy is filled.

              Then start going to work on eliminating the FISA courts, and dismantling the FBI.

            2. Well, you could’ve thrown in Lincoln. Just sayin’

      4. “Well that conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense for two reasons. Of course Dems knew the Senate is run by Trump fluffing toadies so they would never remove him and second everyone knew impeachment is very risky”

        Well since you’re stupid, I’ll help you

        Nancy Pelosi – “we are going to lose anyway, might as well take a shot”

        And you’re mooted.

  14. Trump was free to call witnesses from his admin but he chose not to, in fact we all know he refused to allow them to testify.

    These people of his knew all about his perfect call and the policy behind it. They were perfect witnesses who could have exonerated him perfectly! But Trump didn’t want these perfect witnesses to testify, very curious.

    Pelosi did the right thing. Trump wanted to tie up the impeachment in the courts for months in hopes the public would become exhausted and turn against impeachment. He was not operating in good faith, if you truly revere the Constitution you know he was obstructing the House’s right to conduct impeachment. But I find these Constitution loving RWers only love the Constitution when they can use it to their advantage.

    1. So weird to see people on Libertarian sites actually arguing that not doing whatever investigators want is “hiding information”.

      So, do away with privacy rights, eh? I mean, if you have nothing to hide, who really NEEDS privacy?

      1. Yeah.

        If someone insists that the cops get a warrant, that someone must be guilty!

      2. You can admit you are guilty or plead the 5th/declare your innocence and PROVE you are guilty.

        Nothing wrong with that system of justice. Nothing at all.

    2. “Trump wanted to tie up the impeachment in the courts for months in hopes the public would become exhausted and turn against impeachment.”

      He didn’t need to wait for that to happen.

      “But I find these Constitution loving RWers only love the Constitution when they can use it to their advantage”

      What part of the constitution forces anyone to testify?

      Keep crying

      1. Right, he didn’t need to wait for that to happen because Pelosi refused to play his game and just impeached his ass.

        You RWers are so full of shit, and you know it. If Trump was so innocent, he would have WANTED his people to testify, they would have exonerated him perfectly. The fact he refused to allow them to testify points to his guilt, and you fucking know it.

        1. Yes because it is the duty of the accused to prove their innocence. We don’t live by the Napoleonic code in case you weren’t aware.

          1. Gene is a good example of how people will abandon the concepts of equal rights under law when it’s someone they don’t like.

            Prove you are innocent is banana republic shit and not acceptable in any real system of justice.

        2. “Right, he didn’t need to wait for that to happen because Pelosi refused to play his game and just impeached his ass.”

          You bet, scumbag! If he won’t just admit he’s guilty of something, we’ll make up new charges and stick him with those!
          Do you carry your offspring in a pouch, you piece of shit?

        3. Fuck off jeff.

        4. Are you, like, another farce poster, like OBL? “Cause you’re ffing hilarious!

        5. Pelosi could have allowed President Trump legal representation, and could have allowed Republicans to cross-examine witnesses, but she refused to do so. What is she hiding?

        6. ‘Gene’, to be perfectly honest, I know debating you is a waste of time. As you are both stupid, and a conniving liar salivating at taking down anyone who dissents from your Soviet dreams.

          I much prefer just waiting until you and your faggoted progtard friends finally push too far (which is getting very close if the progtard fools in VA aren’t just blowing smoke) and things finally hit a tipping point. At which time orogtards will be astounded at the pace with which they are wiped off the map.

    3. Operating in good faith? I would like a list of good faith operators we have currently.

    4. GeneS
      December.19.2019 at 1:47 pm
      “Trump was free to call witnesses from his admin but he chose not to, in fact we all know he refused to allow them to testify.”
      Yeah, shame on him for not participating in a kangaroo court!

      “But I find these Constitution loving RWers only love the Constitution when they can use it to their advantage.”
      Compared to fucking lefty ignoramuses with TDS?

  15. Democrats are so unbelievably short sighted there isn’t a pair of glasses to fix it. This won’t age well I reckon. Like the nuclear option and Obamacare. When something doesn’t come from an honest and principled place (even in a dismal place like politics and despite what Amash is saying) it eventually collapses. It has a funny way of doing that.

    I must be losing my mind but both Mueller and the impeachment were based on essentially lies and hearsay and yet this is ‘hard evidence’?

    1. The only President we have some evidence of having an administration out of control and breaking the law…is Obama.

      1. Seriously.

        Mystery pallets of cash to Iran, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Libya, drone killing without due process, spying on Trump and Americans etc….what the frick am I missing?

        That’s what we know of. Obama (and that wicked gnome Hilary) on his own makes Trump look like an amateur.

        1. The killing with due process precedent goes back to at least Abraham Lincoln.

        2. “McConnell tried to throw cold water on both of the articles…”

          He tried? So where’d the water end up?

        3. Weaponizing the IRS against conservatives, either grassroot organizations or individuals.

          The guy was a titanic sack of shit. Thank God he was lazy too. Seriously, go look at the White House schedules from his administration, and compare his work day to Trump’s. Or hell, even Bill Clinton’s.

          1. But Trump likes to eat fast food.

    2. The only thing I can think of is the dems must have thought trump was for sure going to win 2020 so they did this Hail Mary because they literally had nothing left to stop him.

      1. Which was dumb, if that was the case. Prior to this all starting, Trump was still polling behind some of the front-runners. Now he’s either neck and neck, or beating them. RNC donations have gone through the roof since Kavanaugh, and they will have a massive war chest to work with that will home in on those Dem-repped Trump districts.

        I thought for sure in 2016 that Trump wouldn’t last one term; now it’s looking like he might actually win this thing and gain seats in the House, if not outright flip it back.

      2. Tulsi could stop him, but she would also throw sand in the warfare state gears.

  16. Mitch’s assessment sounds about right.

    1. I’m half way trough The Federalist Papers and I conclude about the same. He’s more on point than not.

      The Democrats don’t give a shit about the Constitution. They care about taking Trump out. Full stop.

      1. There are people who have been spending literally every day since the spring of 2016 trying to figure out some way to take him out. In fact, it’s the real reason why Barack Obama never left Washington and is still there now. Even Nixon, as despised as he was by many of the elites of his time, didn’t have to deal with an ongoing coup attempt on his first day in office!

        The only other American president who had to deal with a situation even close to this one was Andrew Johnson, who also faced an opposition so implacably hostile they they refused to ever recognize his legitimacy.

      2. The Democrats don’t give a shit about the Constitution. They care about taking Trump out. Full stop.

        In line with your comment, AND I’M NOT ADVOCATING THIS, WHICHEVER FEDERAL OFFICERS MIGHT BE READING THIS, it would be much more cost effective for someone to just kill the guy, than to go to all of these ineffectual legal maneuvers.

        I really thought, at the time pre-new China tariff deal, that the Chinese government would have used the same calculus to arrive at that end. Tariffs are costing the Chinese economy billions if not trillions of dollars. Said costs are threatening to disrupt their government, lethally for the leaders. The center of gravity for installing and maintaining tariffs is Trump, and largely Trump alone. Remove Trump and Pence and a very friendly leader takes the Oval Office. It shouldn’t cost trillions of dollars for a nation-state to find an Oswald, and have him remove the sole obstacle to the economic relationship pre-Trump. Therefore, why not do it? If the US dissolves in internecine fighting during the aftermath of the act, as left and right blame each other for this horrible act, all the better for not interfering with Chinese foreign policy.

        Again, I’m not advocating this. I’m trying to figure out why it wasn’t tried. I guess they figured things weren’t that bad yet, or they couldn’t do it in a way to completely remove all trace of their involvement.

        1. Progtards are really bad in a fight. Look how weak antifa is, and how bad that faggot who tried to kill all those republican congressmen was.

        2. “”AND I’M NOT ADVOCATING THIS, WHICHEVER FEDERAL OFFICERS MIGHT BE READING THIS,””

          You know that when this lands on the bureaucrats desk, your disclaimer will be redacted due to national security.

    2. “Mitch’s assessment sounds about right.”

      I don’t think he is misrepresenting his sources. But what really makes him right is, not the specifics of his opinion, but that that opinion is being offered by the leader of the Senate, and – most critically – is accurately reflecting the will of the majority of that body.

      While I get what he is talking about I really don’t think it would matter if the majority of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate disagreed. So, in that sense, if enough of the people want you gone as POTUS, and that means supermajority support for your removal, then the specifics of the articles are just window dressing.

      Not saying that is ever what should happen, just noting that it is entirely within the realm of what the Constitution actually allows.

  17. I’m confused – I though the House built the case and then passed off to the Senate for judgement.

    1. No, the house has a hissy fit, hold a vote, then installs Hillary as president. Pod told me that

      1. He’s pretty fucking stupid. Who’s sock is he? I have trouble keeping track of all these shitweasels anymore.

        1. I’m guessing it’s just whoever stayed behind from Reason’s last bring your cretin to work day.

  18. To be fair, Chuck Schumer is already claiming this is the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment trial in modern history, so it kinda balances out.

    1. I do not lose sleep when a judge throws out a poorly thought-out Prosecutorial case, and even reams the Prosecution for bringing such a shoddy case to trial — and I’ve seen enough anecdotes to know that this *does* happen every so often.

      I have a funny feeling we’re about to see a Senatorial equivalent of said anecdotes.

  19. Few would dispute that partisanship has driven much of the impeachment process, but that phenomenon hardly seems unique to Democrats.

    This is what puzzles me, there either is clear and convincing evidence that Trump is guilty, no clear and convincing evidence that he is guilty, or it’s a close call either way. In the event that it’s a close call, I could see a bit of partisan bias creeping in and leading Republicans to lean one way and Democrats the other but virtually every single one of them? Surely in the event it were a close call, you would expect a significant chunk of both sides discounting their bias enough to be able to vote their conscience rather than their party. Which suggests this is not a close call, that there is some pretty clear and convincing evidence one way or the other, but that one side is so deeply partisan that they will ignore the clear and convincing evidence and vote the party line.

    The only question then is which side has the clear and convincing evidence and which side is lying their asses off? Given their history of lying their asses off and yet being able to corral unanimous support from the membership, I know where my money’s at – which party managed to pass Obamacare on a party-line vote despite the immense opposition to it and which party couldn’t manage the repeal of Obamacare despite their having run on that single issue for years? It’s no big deal to get the Democrats to all agree on something, no matter how wrong or stupid, it’s nearly impossible to get the GOP all on the same page. That the GOP is unanimous here suggests they’re right.

    1. Surely in the event it were a close call, you would expect a significant chunk of both sides discounting their bias enough to be able to vote their conscience rather than their party.

      Actually, I expect the exact opposite. When it’s a close call, you can use that fact to give yourself cover while indulging your biases. When it’s a clear and convincing one way or the other, it becomes a lot harder to do so and still maintain some sense of credibility.

  20. So now Pelosi is abusing her power by demanding the Senate create the rules for the trial before she gives them the articles of impeachment.

    1. She claims Mitch is a rogue leader and that Trump thinks he is a king.

      Yes she is DEMANDING that the Executive branch bend to her will re: testimonies of executive members. And now she is trying to control how the Senate does its job, too.

      Projection much?

  21. It may seem to be an abuse of power for a President to threaten to withhold congressionally-appropriated funds in exchange for personal gain. After all, Congress appropriated the money, and the President is intruding on separation of powers for personal gain.

    This is exactly what Barack Obama did, when he issued the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter.

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/06/22/the-campus-sexual-assault-witch-hunts-ethics-train-wreck-complicated-by-the-fact-that-the-witches-are-real/

    He threatened to withhold money that Congress appropriated for universities unless those universities violated the due process and equal protection rights of male students. He did this knowing that the text of Title IX was silent on the issue. and he did this to gain additional support from feminists and anti-rape activists for his re-election campaign!

    The Democrats sure did not have a problem with that, but they sure had a problem with Trump and Education Secretary DeVos in undoing that egregious abuse of power, an abuse that threatened civil rights, an abuse done solely for Obama’s personal benefit.

    So fuck Nancy Pelosi, fuck Jerrold Nadler, fuck Adam Schiff, and most of all, fuck the Woketarian Left that corrupted an entire political party!

    1. I’d just like to add: fuck anyone who thinks that government can or should solve most problems.
      That’s the real problem and I don’t know what you do about it.

      1. I’m sure it’d be possible to drum up support for creating a government committee to investigate options.

      2. Just get rid of them.

  22. Pretty sure Nancy is getting a lot of similar referrals:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIPfEBuA7HY

    And she deserves every one.

  23. News Flash – We Don’t Care About Amash

    1. I don’t care about the rest of congress or Trump either. Yet here we are.

  24. Gross, now I have to defend Democrats.

    “first purely partisan presidential impeachment since the wake of the Civil War”

    So Andy Johnson’s impeachment was purely partisan, but Bill Clinton’s wasn’t?

    “McConnell tried to throw cold water on both of the articles, reducing the first charge—abuse of power—to what he says is a mere contempt on behalf of Democrats for Trump’s style of governance.”

    I guess I’ll to be the naive one here – if the House ever gets around to exhibiting its charges against Trump, won’t McConnell have to promise to do impartial justice? I guess that train has not only left the station, but has already reached Crazytown.

    I’m highly dubious about the charges – but let’s keep up appearances, shall we?

    1. So Andy Johnson’s impeachment was purely partisan, but Bill Clinton’s wasn’t?

      Yeah, that’s stealing a base or three. That said, the unstated reason for investigating Bill as thoroughly as they did was to try and tie either illegal Chinese or other East Asian campaign donations to the Clintons, or worse, that Bill was trading US secrets to the Chinese in exchange for money.

      Starr couldn’t find evidence of that, but did get a whistleblower letting him know there was (crusty) evidence of sexual harassment in the Oval Office, at a time where Clinton had testified under oath he hadn’t. Perjury isn’t treason, but it was good enough after spending all of that time and money, I guess.

      1. Andy Johnson may not have been liked and was a drunk but he was not a pervert and did not have sex with a intern in Our oval office and then tried to lie his way out of the charges….

        1. And the House struggled to find a crime that Johnson actually committed, that is why he was acquitted in the Senate despite the Republicans holding a majority.

    2. “”if the House ever gets around to exhibiting its charges against Trump, won’t McConnell have to promise to do impartial justice?”””

      I don’t know why we would hold him to a higher standard than those who passed the articles. A case could be made that “impeach the motherfucker” Talib should have been recused from voting for the articles. Basically, anyone in the house that ran on getting Trump out of office should not have been allowed to vote. If we wanted to keep it impartial anyway.

  25. The partisan House vote has given rise to the fear the founding Father’s made clear, that it would become a tool used to reject reason and ruin debate….The far left leaning DIMMs have performed a inquisition, declared the POTUS guilty until proven innocent, let politic be the standard because there are no crimes in evidence…The Senate is not going to be bullied by callous House leadership and has dumped this intentional sloppy work back into the Houses lap, the do nothing DIMMs are going to meet the reality of this 2 year hoax they perped in the upcoming election, it will be like there is a brick that was thrown thru their narrow window of procedure and need……may the USA realize their political partisanship and no longer need this thinking to serve as the House leadership…

  26. I wonder why Obama wasn’t “Impeached” for thwarting congressional law with the signing of DACA thereby “bribing” the ICE to ignore congressional law?????????

    I could be wrong; but I don’t think immigration law EVEN has a “corruption” provision for Obama to hang onto making it even worse of an Impeachable act..

    At least President Trump’s fund holding had even the activation of “corruption” investigation initiated thus actually being PURPOSELY within the lines of congressional treaty laws.

    Perhaps thwarting Presidents Trumps effort to investigate for “corruption” is the entire agenda of this whole thing.

    1. Obama obviously didn’t have political motives, duh!

      Let me know if there’s anything else I can progsplain to you.

  27. Mitch McConnell: This Is the ‘Most Rushed, Least Thorough, and Most Unfair Impeachment Inquiry in Modern History’

    ‘So naturally, we’re going to plow through it in a week or so and refuse to talk to any witnesses.’

    McConnell tried to throw cold water on both of the articles, reducing the first charge—abuse of power—to what he says is a mere contempt on behalf of Democrats for Trump’s style of governance.

    Yeah, contempt for withholding congressionally authorized military aid to an ally actively fighting an enemy of ours in exchange for a personal political benefit, can you believe the nerve??

    “The Framers of our Constitution very specifically discussed this issue—whether the House should be able to impeach the president just for maladministration,” said McConnell. “In other words, because the House simply thought the president had bad judgement or was doing a bad job.”

    That’s not the issue, but they did specifically discuss fear that a president would abuse the office to get a foreign country to aid their personal political goals… and boy were they not a fan of it, specifically citing such a scenario as a reason for impeachment.

    McConnel is such a fucking hypocritical anti-American garbage human being.

    1. “…McConnell tried to throw cold water on both of the articles, reducing the first charge—abuse of power—to what he says is a mere contempt on behalf of Democrats for Trump’s style of governance…”

      Which is exactly correct.
      After three years of scrutiny, they got him on an unpaid parking ticket, and we are supposed to assume that’s impeachable.

  28. It appears from the impeachment process, that due to the evolution of the arcane rules of Congress and interpretation of the Article 2 of the Constitution, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President are no longer answerable to anyone while they’re in office.
    I think they should all be answerable to Fareed Zakaria, Tom Friedman, and Bill Maher.

  29. What McConnell is telling America is that we should just trust Trump.

    No need for a fulsome inquiry. No need for more information or witnesses. We should just trust Trump that, when he says he did nothing wrong, he didn’t. When he blocks witnesses from appearing and officials from cooperating with valid congressional oversight, he has nothing to hide. Or that, when he puts a hold on congressionally-mandated military aid to an ally that requires that aid both to defend their sovereignty and to demonstrate to their enemies that we stand by them, in order to pursue “corruption,” he in fact is genuinely interested in “corruption” simpliciter, and not in how any such crackdown on “corruption” might-just-so-happen to make his leading opponent going into 2020 look bad.

    We should just trust Trump.

    The problem is that I already know none of you Trumptards trust Trump. You all already know that he’s a liar and has no moral scruples. That’s what you like about him, because you (wrongly) believe that his mendacious character is what allows him to “Make America Great Again,” whatever that’s supposed to mean as of this morning’s tweet-storm.

    So when Trump calls on us to trust him, and McConnell and his congressional allies and all of the MAGA internet army tell us to trust him, it’s clear to the rest of us that we shouldn’t trust any of you, either. You’re just cynically lying to us so that you can stay in power. That’s all this is about.

    You’re all traitors.

    1. SimonP
      December.20.2019 at 12:24 pm
      “What McConnell is telling America is that we should just trust Trump….”

      No, McConnell is calling this a purely partisan reaction to a lost election.
      And BTW, you don’t have any idea what the term “traitor” means.

      1. It’s being a “purely partisan reaction to a lost election” would be irrelevant if the underlying behavior is properly impeachable anyway. Therefore, McConnell is telling us to trust Trump.

        I know what a traitor is, and you’re one of the scoundrels.

  30. “that meeting a criminal threshold is not a requirement for impeachment.”

    See, you TDSers keep focusing in on this and you don’t even realize what you’re doing. You admit that it doesn’t have to meet a criminal threshold, yet for some asinine reason you don’t see how that torpedoes your own argument. You focus on not having to meet a criminal threshold because you can’t meet a criminal threshold. Your argument has been and will remain weak. If someone did something SO horrible that it warranted impeachment, yet that horrible thing is not horrible enough to warrant some sort of criminal statute regarding it…don’t you see how this contradiction kneecaps your own argument? You’re asking the people to support impeachment because “I don’t like thing.” Super convincing argument right there.

    1. It’s not impossible to think of an action or a policy that a President stubbornly holds onto that would warrant impeachment. If the House were to present such a reason, and I agreed with their reasoning, then I would get behind Impeachment and Removal From Office 100%.

      But the fact is, the House hasn’t even done that! So, while “meeting a criminal threshold is not a requirement for impeachment” may strictly be true, it would be nice if the House actually found SOME sort of threshold beyond “Orange Man Bad”.

  31. .
    The democrats knew they never had a chance at full impeachment and removal. They are counting on putting the ‘I’ asterisk behind President Trump so they can use it to beat people over the head with if RBG goes to the Happy Hunting Ground, and to play the victims to the evil Republicans who won’t participate in their partisan games.

    .

    1. I don’t think their gambit is going to work. Their Impeachment is a nothing-burger, and so when the Democrats cry “But he’s impeached!” when President Trump makes his next Supreme Court appointment, the Senate is going to say “And?” and then go on to approve the appointment, while the American people are going to shrug and say “whatever”.

  32. I agree they should have pursued the subpeona denials through the courts. If Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo and others testified, it would be deadly for Trump. They’ve essentially disarmed themselves.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.