Impeachment

The Calvinball Impeachment Trial Begins

Republicans and Democrats sparred over which rules should stay and which should go.

|

The first day of President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial on Tuesday saw Republicans and Democrats quarreling over the rules for the proceedings, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) rejecting a series of amendments proposed by Democrats that would have allowed them to call additional witnesses and collect documents blocked by the White House. While McConnell initially expressed that he would stick to the Clinton impeachment model, the proceedings are shaping up to be much like Calvinball—the game popularized by Calvin and Hobbes—where players make up the rules as they go along. Indeed, no two impeachments will be the same, it seems.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) proposed 11 amendments to subpoena documents pertaining to Trump's interactions with Ukraine and his decision to abruptly freeze congressionally appropriated military aid to the country, which the Government Accountability Office recently labeled a crime. Schumer also sought to compel those in the president's inner circle, including acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, to testify. Trump blocked several White House officials from appearing during the House's investigation, citing executive privilege.  

The Senate voted down those amendments 53-47 on party lines. A motion for additional witnesses and documents may be called after opening arguments, similar to the roadmap seen during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. But in a deviation from the Clinton model, McConnell inserted an additional stipulation which will allow a majority of senators to dismiss the need to introduce any new evidence whatsoever before voting on individual witnesses or documents.

Democrats argued that Republicans were setting up the trial to conclude without evidence, making it impossible to render a fair verdict. "If the Senate fails to take this step, you won't even ask for the evidence," Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D–Calif.), an impeachment manager, said on the floor. "This trial and your verdict will be questioned."  

Republicans say that if there is too little evidence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) is to blame for not pursuing such subpoenas when the Democratic-controlled House was holding its impeachment hearings. The House voted to impeach Trump in December, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his role in attempting to strongarm Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into announcing investigations that targeted Trump's political rivals.

"If I showed up in any court in this country and I said, 'Judge, my case is overwhelming, but I'm not ready to go yet. I need more evidence' … I would get thrown out in two seconds," White House counsel Pat Cipollone said on the Senate floor. "And that's exactly what should happen here."

Democrats were successful, however, in pushing for two procedural amendments. McConnell, who has urged the need for a speedy trial, originally gave each party 24 hours over two days to present their arguments, prompting criticisms from Democrats who argued that much of the trial would then occur in the middle of the night. Throughout Clinton's trial, both sides had 24 hours but no constraints on the number of days allotted. After much pushback, including from Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), each party will now have three days. 

The majority leader also initially stipulated that no House evidence would be automatically entered into the Senate record, but would require a vote to admit it. Now that evidence will only be blocked should the Senate vote to oppose it. During Clinton's proceedings, senators could not object to House evidence.

The hourslong proceedings were characterized by the same rank partisanship that has colored the entire process thus far, with testy back-and-forths that elicited a stern response from Chief Justice John Roberts. "I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body," Roberts said, referring to Cipollone and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.). "Those addressing the Senate should remember where they are."

NEXT: Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been A Member Of The Federalist Society?

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. The Calvinball Impeachment Trial Begins

    Joke Democrat Impeachment.

    America should be very glad that Democrats dont control the US Senate.

    1. Ironically the headline would likely be just as valid if Dems did control the Senate

      1. A million times more so. After that travesty of a House impeachment. This is what happens.

        The democrats can fuck off.

    2. Of course Binion is with the democrats. TDS knows no bounds.

  2. Since when doe teh GAO get to determine if something was a crime don’t they have to forward their idea to the DOJ for a determination.

    1. probably but who cares. it’s not going anywhere. the gao is a joke. You can tell by it’s name the Goverment Accountability Office, could luck with that.

    2. Well, technically the GAO has just as much ability as the DOJ to say that something was or was not a crime. That is also the same ability as you or I. We can all look at a law, compare it to the facts and form an opinion. The only way to actually determine if a crime occurred is to take it to a court.

      Now I will concede that the DOJ has more experience with courts than the GAO (or you or I) but that just makes them more likely to be right, not automatically right.

    3. Since Comey declared: To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

    4. It might be a crime, but 1) not by Trump and 2) might be unconstitutional if it impedes the president’s Article two powers as CiC.

  3. Rather than handing out popcorn, we should hand out ceremonial tantōs, because this trial is going to make you want to kill yourself.


  4. The hourslong proceedings were characterized by the same rank partisanship that has colored the entire process thus far…

    It’s been a partisan impeachment since before Trump was sworn into office, given that Democrats have been calling for impeachment since before day one.

    Democrats have known for years that they have a slim chance to convict, but that hasn’t stopped them yet just like it didn’t stop Republicans in the 90’s. I’d be willing to wager more Republicans voted that Clinton wasn’t guilty (10, or 5, depending on the charge) than Democrats who will do the same this time around.

    I also recall zero Senate Democrats thought Clinton was guilty. Surprise, surprise.

    1. “”I also recall zero Senate Democrats thought Clinton was guilty.””

      Or perhaps they knew he was guilty but didn’t feel the charges warranted removing him from office. The republicans can do the same.

      1. That’s right, all 45 of them on both counts. Not a single one thought he should have been impeached.

        Really, my only point is that it seems no one writing about this was alive during the Clinton impeachment or they’ve forgotten what happened in the intervening time.

        1. no one writing about this was alive during the Clinton impeachment or they’ve forgotten what happened in the intervening time.

          They’ve certainly forgotten what happened in the following election cycle.

          2020 elections are going to be epic.

        2. Removing a duly elected president from the white house without overwhelming popular support is retarded in a land with more guns than people. If you strike at the king you best not miss. Also this is probably the dumbest move done by either party politically since the republicans tried to impeach clinton. This might be more retarded though because it gives trump a martyre angle to run on in 2020 and the best part and most interesting part of the story is the what exactly was Joe Biden’s crack addled stripper fucking son doing on the board of a ukrainian gas company while Uncle Joe was VP. The angle involving Trump is frankly boring the president with held aid to get something from a foreign power. Lets talk about the tawdry exploits of Biden some more.

          1. This senate trial should be used for the express purpose of destroying as Manaus democrats as possible. DEMOCRATS must be the ones put on trial here. Destroy the Biden’s, Schiff, Pelosi, Fat Jerry, etc..

          2. It is more ridiculous than the Clinton trial because at least Clinton committed perjury, an actual crime.

            He lied about something meaningless and didn’t deserve to be removed over it, but he did actually commit a crime.

            If these Senators are so concerned with Trump’s behavior, why have none of them submitted legislation to make what he did actually illegal?

            1. He didn’t lie about something meaningless, he was trying to alter the outcome of his (civil) trial by lying under oath, and, let us not forget, persuading other people to lie under oath, too.

              He didn’t take that risk because doing so wouldn’t have consequences, , of that you may be sure. He took it because he wanted to win the case.

              1. It was meaningless as far as his work on the presidency went. I despised Clinton and even I could see his impeachment was b.s. as soon as the GOP dropped their pursuit of Clinton’s Chinese “donations”. They were just looking for something to charge him with and it was petty and stupid, and made the GOP come off as petty and stupid to voters.

                The impeachment trial of President Trump is orders of magnitude worse, because they can’t even identify an actual crime, just areas of policy disagreement…which, ironically, involved their disagreement over the President investigating credible allegations of corruption on the part of Joe Biden and other Obama administration officials in Ukraine.

                1. “It was meaningless as far as his work on the presidency went.”

                  Perjury – a materially false statement – is not meaningless when your ‘work’ includes being the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal government.

                  That workplace harassment law – the law that got him under oath
                  – exists is likewise sufficient.

                  1. I guess the “it was a different time” applies. Because no liberal today would call lying about sexual harassment and sexual exportation of a subordinate meaningless.

                    1. Not calling anyone specifically a liberal.

                    2. The sexual harassment case should have been dumped because of laches. But it wasn’t, and there was a certain poetic justice in that asshole getting hoisted on the sexual harassment petard his administration’s lawyers kept throwing at American businesses.

                      Too bad Starr could never find enough evidence to show that Clinton had been bought by China and delivered to them pretty much whatever they asked for. Treason is a perfect cause for using the impeachment power.

                2. The most minimal of Clinton’s offenses were used in the Articles of Impeachment.
                  Why, the Republcans were Gutless, Spineless, the Fix was in.

              2. Meaningless. Get over it.

              3. Has everyone forgotten that Clinton was impeached because he lied, under oath, while he was on trial for sexual harassment?

                Is that not important? That the man trying to hang everyone else for sexual harassment was committing it? And, while on trial for it was committing it again?

                And he ‘settled’ that case. ‘Settled’ meaning ‘paid off the plaintiff and was disbarred for five years over.

                1. “Is that not important? That the man trying to hang everyone else for sexual harassment was committing it?”

                  Honestly, no. Hypocrisy doesn’t move the dial much for me.

                  I get it. He perjured himself. Meh. I couldn’t bring myself to care then and I still don’t. Ymmv, of course, but it was weak tea then and it still is.

              4. Meaningless in the sense that I couldn’t possibly care less who is and isn’t literally sucking the President’s dick at any given point in time.

  5. We cannot have impeachment anarchy!

  6. This is fucking retarded. The only people acting political about this is the Dems all they had to do was subpoena these people in the house and let it play out in the courts. The reason they didn’t do this is because it wasn’t politically expedient and they had to capitalize off the fucking Mueller report somehow. They had to impeach after promising their constituents in 2018 they would and they chose Ukraine because it was close geologically to Russia. They didn’t expect Trump to outmanuever them by actually releasing the transcript of the call and he caught them with their pants down. Now their only play is to scream and bleated how unfair the whole process is when it inevitably collapses along near completely partisan lines in the senate trial process. The senate portion of the impeachment inquiry is just a trial, in this country when a prosecutor brings a case to trial they typically have their ducks in a row and evidence to actually try a case. These fucktards do not because they jumped the gun in the house. The process is two parts the oversight comittee or special investigator presents a case that they’ve uncovered an impeachable offense than they draw up articles of impeachment and subpoena the pertinent witnesses and evidence before the judiciary committee in the house, holding a sort of mock trial. Than after they do that they vote on impeachment in the house and repeat the process in the Senate in a more formal and traditional trial setting. God damn people this whole thing is a fucking sham.

    1. At this point, it’s just a means for Democrats to fundraise and get out the vote among their crazy base: “Bad Orange Man got away with conspiring with Russia! We need control of the Senate to stop him from appointing more rapists to the Supreme Court! Send us money now!”

  7. I just want it to be over.

    1. No way. The kabuki theater of this impeachment is the most interesting thing that Congress has done in years. Keeping them busy with this partisan bickering is the best possible distraction to keep them from taking away more of our rights or spending more of our money.

      I think we should have perpetual impeachments from now on no matter who is in office.

      1. I actually agree with this. Lets make this circus even more dumb.

        1. Maybe if we give them enough rope they will all hang themselves.

          Just like Epstein didn’t.

      2. Follow the Mueller model: from now on, every President gets a team of his political enemies empowered to investigate anything about him that they want, along with anyone who’s associated with him, with unlimited time and budget.

        I wonder how many D.C. swamp things could come through it as well as Trump did?

  8. Schiff gave up the ghost: “can’t trust the People at the ballot box”

    1. The trial should be used to root out his criminal actions. Schiff must be made an example of.

  9. [Gerald] Ford, rather famously, argued on the floor of the House that “high crimes and misdemeanors” should be defined as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers them to be at a moment in history.”

    1. This is true. However the Dems can’t even point to what Trump did something bad beyond he’s Trump and Circumstantial evidence. What they allege he did wrong didn’t happen so they have to prove he tried to do something without anyone without direct knowledge being able to testify on it. To say this is an uphill climb is an understatement given the makeup of the Senate. IF they were actually at all serious all this bullshit would have already been done in the house but they are not.

      1. Agreed. And once in a while the truth comes out from an entirely unexpected source; as in Clinton telling coal miners they will be out of work if she was elected, and Rep Al Green [D, TX] saying “if we don’t impeach him I’m afraid he’ll be re-elected.”

        1. More than likely he’ll be reelected because of not inspite of being impeached.

    2. Gerald Ford, rather famously, is an idiot.

      Why do people believe that, while writing the Constitution, the founders would, alone out of all law, make impeachment the sole instance where the law does not only not matter, but rather is to be discarded as a hindrance?

      We can remove the president at the whim of a majority of congress? Really?

      Does anyone truly believe that the founders decided that this would be the one instance where one could not avoid running afoul? Because under the Idiot Ford’s interpretation, BREATHING is an impeachable offense.

      1. We can remove the president at the whim of a majority of congress? Really?

        Well a super majority, technically.

        And why not? If that threshold is all that is required of Congress to change our government’s structure (+ 3/4 of the states), why should the threshold be different to merely change the leader of one of the co-equal branches of government?

      2. I think they rather practically decided that if a president did something so bad or was so unpopular that over 50% of the population and 3/4 of the states decided they wanted him gone and couldn’t wait somewhere between 1-4 years for that to happen, it wouldn’t really matter what the exact nature of the charges are.

  10. “Throughout Clinton’s trial, both sides had 24 hours but no constraints on the number of days allotted.”

    But that was rendered obviously infeasible after Pelosi sat on the impeachment papers for the better part of a month. It was necessary to prevent the Democrats from engaging in any more stalling tactics.

    1. “Throughout Clinton’s trial, both sides had 24 hours but no constraints on the number of days allotted.”

      It’s a bs argument to try and paint the trial as “unfair”. During the Clinton trial, each side took three days so the limit seems to be set on the precedent of the Clinton arguments.

      1. What was arguably unfair was McConnell trying to reduce it to two days.

        1. Just would have made for a really long two days. Our elected representatives would have to work 13 hours a day for two consecutive days.

          Oh the horror!

          This was Senator McConnell twisting tails.

    2. But that was rendered obviously infeasible

      Why is that? What is more important for the US Senate to do than to oversee the President?

      It’s much more likely that McConnell wants this over as quickly as possible for political reasons, and the Democrats want it to drag on for political reasons. This whole thing is politics on both sides.

      1. Do you see any evidence that dragging it out favors the dems?

        1. Whether it does or doesn’t, they seem to think it favors them. Why else would they try to drag it out? I personally don’t think it helps the Dems. They are too far down this road to save themselves now.

        2. So far the best conspiracy theory I’ve heard for why Pelosi held it up and why the dems are dragging it out is that this is an effort by establishment dems to keep Sanders and Warren away from Iowa so Biden can secure the nomination.

        1. Oversight was the wrong word to convey what I meant. What I meant is their ability to apply checks on Presidential actions. It’s hard to say you believe in limited government if you don’t think that it’s important for individual branches to limit the role of the other branches.

          Not sure why this was the hill that they wanted to die on for this President, but it’s the hill they chose.

  11. Call me when Hunter gets called to testify

  12. Hey cunt, impeachment is purely political, remember?

  13. Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr there doesn’t need to a crime! Impeachment is political!!!! Democrats can do whatever they want! DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

    Herpa derp hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Republicans are being partisan!!!! DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

    Holy fuck Billy. Did you parents have any children that lived?

    1. ^^ This.

      It’s political, but it’s wrong for the other team to be political about it!

      1. Hey now, being partisan about defending someone who’s been falsely accused is exactly like being partisan about falsely accusing someone!

  14. “I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said, referring to Cipollone and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.). “Those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”

    Oh, they know where they are. And most importantly, we know where they are.

    1. “You should treat this chamber with all the respect that it deserves.”

      “Oh, in that case, let me pull down my pants and run around screaming out my arguments.”

      1. Still too much respect.

    2. “Oh, they know where they are. And most importantly, we know where they are.”

      Insert [sound of rounds being chambered] here

    3. “remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,”

      If the current US Congress is the world’s greatest deliberative body, we’re fucked as a species.

  15. So after last night, the score sits at Republicans: elephant, Democrats: taco?

  16. Hmm…thought experiment:
    1) Initial trial in the House, with witnesses, testimony, etc. leading to impeachment. Check.
    2) Presupposing second trial in senate, more witnesses, testimony, etc.;

    Why not a 5a double jeopardy claim?

    1. a. Because the House proceedings are not a “trial” in any sense. The closest criminal analogy that you can get to is a grand jury. Or maybe the behind-the-scenes meetings and negotiations that happen between the police and prosecutors when deciding if to take a case to trial, whether they have enough evidence, who they might call, etc. The House just does it out in the open and with a lot more people, some of whom will almost always be partisans for the accused. So it looks more adversarial than a grand jury even though it’s not.

      a. Because even if the House proceedings were a “trial”, the 5th Amendment only applies to criminal trials,
      not to impeachments. So even if the Senate acquits, nothing stops the House from starting things all over again any time they like. Double jeopardy just doesn’t apply.

      1. Ah, more ham-handed “legal” analysis.

      2. McCarthy VS. Arndstein

        The government insists, broadly, that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not apply in any civil proceeding. The contrary must be accepted as settled. The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant. It protects, likewise, the owner of goods which may be forfeited in a penal proceeding. See Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 563 , 564 S., 12 S. Ct. 195

        1. Well, you got your citation format right. But that paragraph about self-incrimination has nothing to do with the question that Reshufflex asked about double jeopardy.

      3. “a. Because even if the House proceedings were a “trial”, the 5th Amendment only applies to criminal trials,“

        Yea. Good catch. Criminal trial(s) seems to be the key; I was more focused on the “prosecution” aspect of the matter ( being done twice); nor was I sure if impeachment fell under criminal or civil proceeding. I’m guessing the latter since no due process protections apply.

        1. Reply meant for Rossami. New here. Sorry.

          1. Well, he’s wrong, as my post above demonstrates.

        2. Thought you could claim the 5th Amendment in a civil proceeding, but that the other side was then able to comment and argue for all negative inferences concerning your decision to assert it. In a criminal proceeding, the opposing side isn’t allowed to comment at all before the jury on the decision to claim the privilege.

          If the 5th Amendment didn’t apply in a civil proceeding, a witness could be compelled to give testimony against themselves, and be found in contempt of the deliberative body if they refused.

          1. Apologies, I did not mean to imply that nothing about the 5th Amendment applies outside criminal cases. I meant to explain that the double jeopardy clause of the 5th only applies there. You can, for example, be tried criminally and sued civilly for the same action. You can even be (within limits) sued twice for the same thing. And you can be impeached as many times as the House wants (and the voters will tolerate).

            1. Well, the same conduct of a party may be addressed in a criminal action and a civil action, but the parties to both actions are different. Criminal is the State v. The Accused; Civil is Plaintiff v. Defendant. There are cases where the line blurs; e.g., in cases of stock market criminal action, the federal government may find that criminal charges are applicable, and the SEC may also sue in a civil action. Different entities are involved in each case though.

              Double jeopardy is really a critter of criminal law, not civil. I’d use the concept of issue preclusion or res judicata to talk about a civil litigant being unable to litigate the same issue twice against the same party. (Assuming an opportunity to fully litigate all of the issues in the first proceeding against all of the parties.)

              Impeachment is a bit sui generis. It just doesn’t happen all that often, and when it does, it’s usually just an administrative action, codifying a prior criminal trial’s findings. Like impeaching a federal judge such as Alcee Hastings when he went up for bribery.

              Impeaching the President is a little different. It’s clearly not a criminal case, nor is any prior criminal conviction needed, but neither is it a civil action. I’d guess it’s more of an administrative action, subject to the explicit text of the Constitution.

              1. “subject to the explicit text of the Constitution….”

                I was yappin’ over at Volokh on this topic so I won’t belabor it, but I’m pretty sure Dershowitz is going to go full-blown haywire on the “explicit text” actual meaning re: impeachment criteria.

                In particular, he’s going to trash the abuse of power ( absent a coterminous crime) article against Trump.

                1. Was there an actual crime in the Johnson or Nixon impeachment proceedings? And I don’t think Clinton had been convicted of perjury when that impeachment trial was going on. I’m not sure an actual crime is required for a Presidential Impeachment. Though it would sure be an easier case if there was one.

                  Completely agree that this is an abuse of power and process against Trump.

                2. Was there an actual crime in the Johnson or Nixon impeachment proceedings? And I don’t think Clinton had been convicted of perjury when that impeachment trial was going on. I’m not sure an actual crime is required for a Presidential Impeachment. Though it would sure be an easier case if there was one.

                  Completely agree that this is an abuse of power and process against Trump.

                3. Was there an actual crime in the Johnson or Nixon impeachment proceedings? And I don’t think Clinton had been convicted of perjury when that impeachment trial was going on. I’m not sure an actual crime is required for a Presidential Impeachment. Though it would sure be an easier case if there was one.

                  Completely agree that this is an abuse of power and process against Trump.

                  1. As I recall, Johnson was hit with a dozen articles, but only two or three were crimes. He tried firing the War Secretary and was running around half the country yelling how he hated blacks, more or less.

                    On the heels of the E/P. Balsy fuck.

                    That pissed off the House republicans , who ruled the roost, obviously. I’m pretty sure John Bingham ( the dude who wrote the 14a {due process clause) and Thad Stevens were his principal antagonists. Could be wrong.

                    Nixon got hit with Obstruction of Justice; he used the FBI to thwart the watergate investigation. What a clown.

                    I didn’t really follow the Clinton mess. Yea, perjury was in there.

                    Anyway, Justice Curtis ( of all people) actually defended Johnson ( Curtis, btw, dissented in Dred Scott), the avowed segregationist. He offered a brilliant, original spin on why a ( High) crime was an imperative to impeach a president.

                    It saved Johnson’s ass.

            2. “…he 5th Amendment applies outside criminal cases. I meant to explain that the double jeopardy clause of the 5th only applies there…”

              Well done. However, if you’re acquitted of a federal crime, say, involving weapons or drugs, and the feds later file civil action against you on the same charge(s) whereupon the action becomes punitive or a de facto punishment rather than just a fine-

              I’m thinking maybe you could invoke the D/J clause to dismiss the civil charges.

  17. his decision to abruptly freeze congressionally appropriated military aid to the country

    We are still pretending this happened?

    1. We will always be pretending it happened.

  18. The Final Impeachment vote will be Q to 12.

    CNN will still not know who won.

    1. +65,000 sealed indictments. (Or whatever the number is up to now with those Q-tards.)

  19. LOL – right now listening to Schiff describing Russia as the greatest geopolitical threat we face. Somebody should tell him the ’80’s called and want their foreign policy back.

    1. Didn’t their only aircraft carrier catch fire, while dry docked for repairs, like a month ago?

      What a threat. The Russians may be threatening to Europeans, but that really seems like their problem and not ours.

      1. “The Russians may be threatening to Europeans, but that really seems like their problem and not ours.”

        The nukes are still there. Not many of them may fly, and they’ve probably fewer than the Chinese do at this point, but they’re still there.

        Their attempts to project military power are pretty laughable at this point though. Just ask Wagner Group. If you can find any survivors.

    2. throughout the last three years everytime I think Nunes is the largest cockgobbling piece of shit partisan in congress I soon hear his mirror in Schiff talk and it makes him seem like almost a moderate.

      1. Nadler is the cockgobbler, not Nunes.

    3. To be honest, it’s almost refreshing to see that there’s something the Russians could do that would turn the Left against them. But as soon as a Democrat is President again, they’ll go back to showing Vladimir Putin how flexible they can be.

      1. “To be honest, it’s almost refreshing to see that there’s something the Russians could do that would turn the Left against them. But as soon as a Democrat is President again, they’ll go back to showing Vladimir Putin how flexible they can be.”

        That something was ditching communism.
        They were flexible with Russia when they thought Medvedev was lined up to replace an on-the-way-out Putin, and they could nudge that into happening sooner rather than later.
        It’s why you see the abrupt shift in attitude from the beginning of Obama’s first term through the early part of his 2nd, culminating in the Ukrainian coup.
        Putin was the primary impediment to Global Socialism, though Brexit and Trump have added to the difficulties

        1. Then they’re even stupider than I thought. Anyone who was paying attention understood that Medvedev was just a placeholder until Putin could get the Russian constitution changed to allow him to resume the Presidency for life.

          Even Medvedev’s reply to Obama’s ‘flexibility’ comment (“I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”) shows who was always the real boss.

          1. Yes.
            They were very stupid.

        2. Funny how certain Dems with ancestry from Russia had no issue with the old USSR under Troysky and Lenin and later Stalin until he kicked certain groups out of power. This is about the “America First” threat to globalists and our foreign policy under Trump which is at least a little more non interventionist. Fifth columnists all of them…

    4. Schiff is concerned about Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
      Does anyone remember Schiff expressing any concern for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity when Russia was seizing Crimea and Eastern Ukraine?
      Does anyone remember concerns about our obligations to our Allies in Europe and treaty obligations during that time?

      1. And what’s the disposition of Schiff’s congressional district to illegal immigrants?

  20. “Democrats argued that Republicans were setting up the trial to conclude without evidence, making it impossible to render a fair verdict.”

    All necessary evidence should be in the house records of the investigation. Give each Senator a copy, allow three days to read it, then vote. The only good thing about this farce is it prevents them from doing something equally stupid that might become an actual law.
    Oh, wait. Trump could ‘obstruct’ congress by a veto. How inconvenient.

    1. Impeachment is more like a grand jury indictment. You can introduce evidence during a trial. It’s called “discovery”. During Clinton’s trial there was new video testimony from witnesses (e.g. Monica Lewinsky) and there were documents introduced e.g.

      “Clinton also provided more than 90,000 pages of documents and other information ahead of his trial, according to a Clinton White House response to a referral from the Office of Independent Counsel. By contrast, the Trump White House have not provided documents or complied with subpoenas for more than 70 records, the House wrote in its impeachment inquiry report. The White House has cited executive privilege in its refusal to comply.”

      1. “You can introduce evidence during a trial. It’s called “discovery”. ”

        This is either the worst explanation of what discovery is, or you do not understand it at all.
        Discovery is not the introduction of evidence to the jury, it’s the prosecution giving notification of all potential evidence, all findings, to the defense prior to trial

  21. Reason insists on trying to drag the GOP into this mud.

    The only ones playing Calvin Ball are the Democrats – by themselves.

    Hobbes is not even there.

    1. Nonsense. The whole thing is Hobbesian.

      1. Nasty, brutish, but not short. Unfortunately.

  22. the proceedings are shaping up to be much like Calvinball—the game popularized by Calvin and Hobbes—where players make up the rules as they go along.

    AND THE RULES ARE NEVER THE SAME TWICE.

    I’ve caught your attempt at revisionist history.

  23. During Clinton’s proceedings, senators could not object to House evidence.

    1. No one is objecting to the evidence presented by the House of Representatives.
      The Objection it to the Senate gathering new evidence.

      The only witnesses that should be able to be called are those that already testified during the House proceedings. Questions can only be asked to clarify previous testimony.

      If someone is on trial for bank robbery, at the midpoint, the prosecutor cannot add murder charges to the case under trial. This is what you are expecting.

  24. Oh Reason, how funny that you are trying to suggest ‘both sides’ are making up the rules as they go along. Federalist 75 supports a rigorous impeachment process and a proactive Supreme Court justice. Republicans are engaging in every possible pretext and distraction to avoid the introduction of relevant evidence. How can you suggest ‘both sides’ are playing games with the timing of this process, when Trump invoked privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying before the House, and the Senate now says it is too late to hear from John Bolton.

    Critical thinking and objectivity giving equal weight to all sides. Critical thinking and objectivity require thorough consideration of all arguments.

    Reason, you don’t deserve your name.

    1. We occasionally call them Unreason. 🙂

    2. It IS too late for Bolton. That is the point. The House had at its disposal avenues to obtain all the evidence they now say the Senate should procure. They consciously decided not to pursue those avenues thereby tacitcly conceding to Trump’s privelage claim. Now they want the Senate to take up those avenues even though that is not the duty of the Senate in this process.

      I am more inclined today than before to think Trump did something wrong and potentially worthy of removal from office. However, process does play a role in justice. And justice matters more than guilt. It’s like that old quote about how you shouldn’t tear down the law to get to the devil because then there is nothing to stop him from getting you. In this case… the House failed their duty. That is not Trump’s fault, the Senate’s fault, or our fault. That rests 100% on the Dems. They may have let is down by letting a possibly guilty man go free. There is not one Senator with integrity that can vote to remove based on the case provided by the House. If Trunp is guilty… then the Dems deserve our ire for failing justice and for failing us.

      Or… maybe he actually didn’t do anything wrong anyhow and STILL shouldn’t be removed. That’s where I still am, just less so than before.

  25. CORRECTED

    Oh Reason, how funny that you are trying to suggest ‘both sides’ are making up the rules as they go along. Federalist 75 supports a rigorous impeachment process and a proactive Supreme Court justice. Republicans are engaging in every possible pretext and distraction to avoid the introduction of relevant evidence. How can you suggest ‘both sides’ are playing games with the timing of this process, when Trump invoked privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying before the House, and the Senate now says it is too late to hear from John Bolton?

    Critical thinking and objectivity are not giving equal weight to all sides. Critical thinking and objectivity require thorough consideration of all arguments.

    Reason, you don’t deserve your name.

  26. The job of the Senate is to assess the evidence presented by the House of Representatives. Either the House made their case for removal from office or they did not.
    If the Senate gathers evidence, and convicts or removes the president from office, effectively the Consitution has been amended because the sole power to remove the President from office now rests with the Senate.
    This is not the process the Constitution calls for in amending the US Constitution. It is not the process the Constitution requires for Impeaching and Removing a President from Office.

    1. Well put.

  27. Quote: Indeed, no two impeachments will be the same, it seems.

    All impeachments so far have been political, not criminal, so they will all be different.

    1. And given that this is only the third time we have done it over several hundred years… color me SHOCKED that there isn’t an iron clad precedent. SHOCKED I SAY!!! It is almost as if they have to figure it out as they go along because there isn’t any definitive guide on it or something.

  28. I remember even before the election was done many of these Dems stating they would figure out a way to remove Donald Trump if elected. So they tried the POTUS in the media with the media’s gleeful assistance. The media has turned into a branch of government that can overturn elections if this game is allowed to progress any further. So yes shut it down and let’s move on.

  29. Was there an actual crime in the Johnson or Nixon impeachment proceedings? And I don’t think Clinton had been convicted of perjury when that impeachment trial was going on. I’m not sure an actual crime is required for a Presidential Impeachment. Though it would sure be an easier case if there was one.

    Completely agree that this is an abuse of power and process against Trump.

  30. My money’s on Cippolone versus Nadler….he is just much smarter…..

  31. America should be very glad that Democrats dont control the US Senate. http://www.sekillinick.space

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.