eagleye13 Loc: Fl

" It is not just what your clowns did. It is the sanctimony they did it with. Invoking the Constitution like they revere it. During your Great Obama's gig they did everything they could to destroy that paper." - son of witless

Yep!
Americans better remember that in 2020.

Carol Kelly

Carol Kelly

They should have enough honest Democrats to override any RINO votes, if there are any honest Democrats. They’re out here, but are they in there? 2020 May see Smalwell and others going home, hopefully.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

That is the problem with most progressives, is they put their thoughts into those of the Presidents and his supporters. They put words in place of those actually said by the President to align with their false beliefs. As for cheating, what does it seem to be that the Dems are doing now. They seek to overturn an election by the people and try to remove the President by any means by hook or crook. They were wanting him impeached even before he was elected. That is how far down this illegal path these Dems have gone. No truth produced of any crime by Trump only supposition's and false allegations. Then the Judiciary committee only bring in three radical Dems to try to prevaricate what they believe to be the truth. Only one liberal Constitutional scholar told the committee the truth about what was Constitutional and this impeachment wasn't even close to being Constitutional. How crooked a path the Dems have woven.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

What rules did the Republicans vote to approve in 2015? As for your next statement, the President wouldn't be allowed to have their witness's in front of the committee. The next thing not being legal in the letter of the law, the committee chairman had the right to have the witness's refuse to answer questions poised by the Republican committee members. Those scholars you speak of, all have shown their disdain for this President many times in the past. So that makes them highly partisan. Then that female, so-called scholar made the remark about the Presidents son. That was uncalled, for but only showed her disdain for the President and his family. When it goes before the Senate the one that will have the ultimate decision of whether the President has committed a crime and should be impeached is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the U. S.. He hasn't shown much partisanship toward the Republicans. But if he doesn't go along with your hatred of the President you will say, "the President is still guilty and you will never believe he wasn't guilty. Of course the just goes along with all of the progressives two faced accusation's. If a Dem President had said the same words when talking to another countries head of state you wouldn't have thought another second about it. You would have passed it off as just another example of the great things your president had done.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Louie, are you telling me that the chief Justice of the SC is part of the Senate?? Please explain that one for me..

I agree and have said in the past that kids should not be any part of insults to presidents ETC.. However, referring to Baron name is hardly any insult to the kid..

The experts, all 4, called in for testimony all have great credentials and 3 to 1 agreed that the process is going as per rules..

The whole world disdains the orange POS sitting in the oval office. except for the 38% of american voters who will support him even as he steals their own hard earned money and future..

No Democrat president has done the solicitation for help that trump has, so we will never know what I may or may not have said..

rules change in 2015..

https://americanindependent.com/house-republicans-impeachment-inquiry-rules-kevin-mccarthy-fox-news-andrew-napolitano

As the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump uncovers more and more evidence of possible wrongdoing, House Republicans have increasingly focused their argument on complaining about the process.

Earlier this month, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy demanded inquiry proceedings be stopped unless the minority got the power to subpoena witnesses. On Wednesday, Minority Whip Steve Scalise, and others even likened the secure, closed-door investigation into sensitive foreign policy matters to something out of the Soviet Union. That same day, a group of angry House Republicans barged into the secure facility and effectively halted hearings for several hours, complaining about transparency.

But if they find the process unfair, they have only themselves to blame. The House rules that govern this process were adopted in 2015, by the then-Republican majority. And the same Republican leaders leading this criticism helped establish those majority-centric rules at that time.

But while minority-party members once had significant say in who was subpoenaed, a major 2015 rule change rammed through by the Republican majority stripped them of this power. The majority leader at that time was McCarthy himself.

On Wednesday, Scalise took part in a press conference organized by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) to demand that the secure hearings be more "transparent."

Obviously any actual impeachment vote would be done in public, should the majority decide to charge him with "high crimes and misdemeanors." Under the Constitution, that would trigger a trial in the GOP-controlled Senate, where a two-thirds super-majority would be required to remove Trump from office.

But the House rules, which McCarthy and Scalise helped enact, also allow this fact-finding portion of the impeachment inquiry to be done in private, by the relevant committees. Indeed many of the House Republicans protesting the lack of "transparency" of the secure hearings are allowed to attend them and have been participating.

On Thursday, Fox News' senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano surprised his colleagues by noting that he had actually read the House rules and discovered that the Democrats were following them.

"As frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors, the hearings over which Congressman [Adam] Schiff [D-CA] is presiding, they are consistent with the rules," he noted.

Carol Kelly

Lindsey Graham promises to be on Hannity on Monday night. Should be promising.

Carol Kelly

Precisely!

truthiness

And a predetermined non-conviction.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Pretty much, when Carly Fiorina and Jeb Bush's coup failed about three months in, they worked on impeachment that much harder.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

No question. Actually McConnel alone could but I think he wants the solidarity issue. Kind of rub their faces in it. I know for a fact Rob Portman is against the impeachment farce. And then what do the American people think? It's losing steam every second.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

They can't, there hasn't been one. A process crime? Not impeachable and I don't think he committed any.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

I agree, however, she really beat herself.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Compared to all the shit Obammie pulled and had yet to pull? You are right though the commies do tend to go in lockstep.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

No, YOU like every other dem conveniently forgets the treaty we have with Ukraine. I find that funny since it was signed by Bubba Clinton. So there goes your bribe.