The McConnell Rule

Are serious? The democrats had 2-3/4 years to prepare their cans and now, as usual, they want last minute witnesses"?
Does this smell at all like the Kavanaugh hearings?

 

Mitch's own caucus bitch slapped McTreason across the room by rejecting his sham rules.

 

That was a brilliant idea for Schiff to put up video footage of President Skidmark saying how he would love to have all sorts of witnesses testify.

 

It does not matter. He solicited help from a foreign country to help him in his campaign. Even if the foreign country complied willingly, volunteered to help, it would still be wrong. Who thinks that it is a good idea to ask foreign countries to participate in our elections. This has become a trend with Republican presidents. First Nixon just tried to break in and steal Democratic secrets. Reagan succeeded in getting the Iranians to help him along, as has Trump in being helped by the Russians. But he did get caught trying to get the Ukrainians to help him.

 

History can't be changed? Then why do the liberals try to rewrite history like their take on Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are you comparing Trump to Mao, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot? Trump hasn't done anything that warranted impeachment other than getting elected.

 

Hilarious how Dems/Socialists/MSM and the rest of them screamed that they needed to finish the House impeachment as quickly as possible, screaming the whole time that "The House sets the rules!!!!"

Yet now they think it is different for the Senate?

Dems are in dire straights here, its becoming more and more obvious that they are completely corrupt.

 

Who testified that they heard the president say that he requested this help for his campaign? On the other hand the house is using the impeachment for political purposes. That is an abuse of their power.

 

No idea what you're talking about, but not interested. Off topic.

No.

 

Hysterical blather. Obama litterally destroyed everything he touched. From health care to Libya to Iraq to military morale. You name he screwed it up. Half or more of what Trump has had to do is repair the damage Obama wrought

 

I'm surprised since you're such an authority on everything and all.

 

Any man or woman worth their salt wouldn’t use McConnell for anything other than a ‘what not to do’ example.

The President should be embarrassed by his counsel, are they actually attorney’s? I’m most surprised they are willing to stand in front of the Chief Justice and continually misrepresent facts. Their consistency would find them on the street curb in a court setting.

 

He plays politics just like the dems. Somehow you are surprised by that?

 

McConnell has said he would use the Clinton Impeachment as precedent. He is NOT doing that. The Clinton Impeachment had witnesses and evidence. That would destroy Trump

No. That's "not true". (There is a more accurate word for it but the site forbids its use). Trump blocked every witnesses he could. Many testified in SPITE of what Trump said

 

The executive branch has executive privilege whether they declare it or not. However, the democrats could have subpoenaed the witnesses and then go to court if they refused to testify. They decided they were in too much of a hurry to do that. The democrats created this disaster all by themselves.

 

Nothing to investigate? Must be why their is a criminal investigation going on now.

 

Is this the authoritarian side of conservatism that conservatives keep denying. Dear leader can do no wrong.

 

How about actually addressing what I said?

 

Isn’t the essential defense of Trump that he is the president and as such can do whatever he wants, and how dare the Democrats question his motives? That is quite an authoritarian stance. It is one of those cracks that is always obvious to those outside the conservative bubble. Claiming to be about individualism while conforming to the herd and worshiping at the feet of a leader.

 

This false meme is getting so trite it is silly. The 2020 election never came up in any discussion between Trump and Ukraine. Trump was very concerned with the past egregious corruption that was rampant in Ukraine as everyone recognized -- until it became inconvenient for some -- and was talking to a president who ran on stopping the corruption. Trump was exploring that further. And he knew of a specific case where there was reasonable suspicion (from a video of a self admitted crime) that a US official might be involved. That official happened to be named Biden and there was some chance that maybe he would be the Democrat candidate for presidency in 2020. You are trying to claim your bowl of sonofabitch stew is really a filet Mignon steak dinner, and it is getting tiresome.

 

You have the players completely turned around. In any regular trial a prosecutor who opened his case by appealing to the judge that he has insufficient evidence and would the judge please help him out would find himself sitting on the curb if not charged with contempt.

 

The rationale being Trump poses a threat to our democracy because of his demonstrated willingness (twice) to encourage foreign interference in our elections.

 

So..........you're saying after a grand jury indictment (House impeachment) if a prosecutor told the judge new evidence had come to light of the defendant's guilt the judge wouldn't allow it?
Hypothetical arguments aside.........the real world situation is that Repubs are making the argument they do not want to see more evidence of Trump's guilt because it will make it easier to acquit him. You know...........the thing McTreason said was going to happen weeks ago.

 

You might have a point if either had any truth to it.

 

Absolutely the judge would allow new or additional evidence. But the judge would not go get it for the prosecution, not ever.

 

Completely untrue. The White House must DECLARE Executive Privilege for it to be a "thing" and so that it could be challenged in Court. Something that hasn't been declared can not be challenged in court