Washington Post Editorial Board Shreds ‘Cringing Shamefulness’ Of GOP Senators With Warning
Feb 1, 2020 20:59:45 #
The Washington Post editorial board has called out “the cringing shamefulness” of Republican senators’ decision on Friday to block witnesses from testifying in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
The board wrote in an op-ed ― titled “The cringing abdication of Senate Republicans” ― that GOP lawmakers who v**ed “to suppress known but unexamined evidence” of Trump’s Ukraine misconduct must have calculated “the wrath of a vindictive president is more dangerous than the sensible judgment of the American people” who polls showed wanted to hear testimony.
The board dismantled the “weak and contradictory” reasons given by GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) for v****g against witnesses before predicting “Americans who object to Mr. Trump’s relentless stonewalling and Republicans’ complicity can take some comfort in the prospect that most or all of the evidence the White House is hiding will eventually come out.”
“We can hope only that v**ers who wanted that evidence to be heard in the trial will respond by showing incumbent senators they are a force to be reckoned with, as much as the bully in the White House,” the board concluded.
The board wrote in an op-ed ― titled “The cringing abdication of Senate Republicans” ― that GOP lawmakers who v**ed “to suppress known but unexamined evidence” of Trump’s Ukraine misconduct must have calculated “the wrath of a vindictive president is more dangerous than the sensible judgment of the American people” who polls showed wanted to hear testimony.
The board dismantled the “weak and contradictory” reasons given by GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) for v****g against witnesses before predicting “Americans who object to Mr. Trump’s relentless stonewalling and Republicans’ complicity can take some comfort in the prospect that most or all of the evidence the White House is hiding will eventually come out.”
“We can hope only that v**ers who wanted that evidence to be heard in the trial will respond by showing incumbent senators they are a force to be reckoned with, as much as the bully in the White House,” the board concluded.
Feb 2, 2020 00:53:26 #
rumitoid wrote:
The Washington Post editorial board has called out... (show quote)
Calling witnesses was the job of the House. The job of the Senate is to evaluate the evidence presented to it by the House. To that effect, past impeachment trials have allowed the calling of witnesses already interviewed by the House for explanation or clarification. They have never called new witnesses. Never.
Feb 2, 2020 06:08:25 #
rumitoid wrote:
known but unexamined evidence”
All the l*****t here ignore the big question: If there was 'known' evidence, why wasn't it brought out in Schiff's House 'investigation'?
Feb 2, 2020 07:11:53 #
rumitoid wrote:
The Washington Post editorial board has called out... (show quote)
It is the job of the House of Representatives to present their case. It is their job to have their ducks in a row before they present their case to the Senate. It is NOT the job of the Senate to fix the screwups of an incompetent House impeachment process. The House had ample opportunity to call witnesses before they presented to the Senate. You simply want them to have another bite of the apple; then another and another, and when they still cannot present a compelling case, you will doubtless find a way to blame Raaaaaaciiiiiiiiiists!!! for the impasse.
Feb 2, 2020 10:08:19 #
It was party over country no other way to look at it!
That had an obligation to oath of office and for the sake of the country to look at all evidence out there ,
That had an obligation to oath of office and for the sake of the country to look at all evidence out there ,
Feb 2, 2020 11:34:13 #
Lonewolf wrote:
It was party over country no other way to look at it!
That had an obligation to oath of office and for the sake of the country to look at all evidence out there ,
That had an obligation to oath of office and for the sake of the country to look at all evidence out there ,
Yes they did - and Adam Schiff completely failed to do so.....
Feb 8, 2020 13:30:19 #
JW wrote:
Calling witnesses was the job of the House. The job of the Senate is to evaluate the evidence presented to it by the House. To that effect, past impeachment trials have allowed the calling of witnesses already interviewed by the House for explanation or clarification. They have never called new witnesses. Never.
Pay attention: there were no new witnesses and for Clinton's they insisted on witnesses, and there was no crime asserted.
Feb 8, 2020 13:42:53 #
rumitoid wrote:
Pay attention: there were no new witnesses and for Clinton's they insisted on witnesses, and there was no crime asserted.
facts confuse themFeb 8, 2020 14:06:30 #
American Vet wrote:
All the l*****t here ignore the big question: If there was 'known' evidence, why wasn't it brought out in Schiff's House 'investigation'?
It was. That is how they drew up the two counts.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.