What Are They Afraid Of? (Page 3): I thought that McConnell's response re: Pelosi's House inaction was classic. He said that he didn't understand her trying to leverage anything by...

bylm1-Bernie

rjoeholl wrote:

Usually, if a prosecuting party wants to hear a defense, they will make a solid accusation and stick to it. But during the House debacle all we heard was accusations that kept changing every two days. If I were McConnell I'd tell Nancy to Pizz up a rope and give her a statement signed by all republican senators saying they will not accept any articles until they are obtained "fairly".

I thought that McConnell's response re: Pelosi's House inaction was classic. He said that he didn't understand her trying to leverage anything by withholding from the Senate something they didn't want anyway.

federally indicted mattoid

Barracuda2020 wrote:

That's exactly it, she knows exactly what she's doing. The Senate as cast aside their just duty, to not hear or acknowledge the actual trial. If there was nothing to fear, they would listen to every sworn testimony, which must include the people blocked by Trump, in order for an accurate trial to take place, which should also include swearing in the president. If he's done nothing wrong, he's got nothing to hide, that's as simple and direct as it gets.

These are words the right wing talking point synchophants don't want to read/hear.

If he's not guilty of either article of impeachment, he should let the people in his administration answer their subpeonas and testify. Simple pimple. What is he afraid of? (Lol, we know the answer.)

Ferrous Loc: Pacific North Coast, CA

American Vet wrote:

What happened to democrats claiming President Trump is an imminent threat?

"House Democratic leaders on Wednesday said they were not in a rush to hand off impeachment to the Senate, demanding a fair process"

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/18/nancy-pelosi-democrats-demand-fair-senate-impeachm/?utm_source=ForAmerica&fbclid=IwAR17UILIau4xv3yEYm5k70OQGrhTBsvvF3rznCzZ773wiri5Kos_RCvprhU

Interesting note... When the House turns a majority for the Republicans, in 2020, they could pass a Resolution to expunge the Impeachment. The Resolution would go over to the Senate, and with a Simple Majority could "Remove and Expunge" any taint of the Dim's Impeachment.

Andrew Jackson's Censure expunged.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-censures-jackson

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

American Vet wrote:

Did the House Intelligence Committee investigate? Did they call their witnesses and produce their evidence? Did they reach a conclusion about they information they gathered?

Impeachment is a two step process the house already has the articles approved and ready so Trump has been impeached.
Now the articles have to be sent to the senate for the second step the impeachment trial.
Sorry reread, may not be considered formal until presented.

Impeachment. If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. If the official subsequently is convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, he is removed from office.

Senate.gov › reference › Index › Impeachment

U.S. Senate: Impeachment

Smedley_buzkill

Barracuda2020 wrote:

That's exactly it, she knows exactly what she's doing. The Senate as cast aside their just duty, to not hear or acknowledge the actual trial. If there was nothing to fear, they would listen to every sworn testimony, which must include the people blocked by Trump, in order for an accurate trial to take place, which should also include swearing in the president. If he's done nothing wrong, he's got nothing to hide, that's as simple and direct as it gets.

Just curious, how do you listen to testimony in a trial that has not yet begun?

bylm1-Bernie

useful mattoid 45 wrote:

These are words the right wing talking point synchophants don't want to read/hear.

If he's not guilty of either article of impeachment, he should let the people in his administration answer their subpeonas and testify. Simple pimple. What is he afraid of? (Lol, we know the answer.)

I don't think you Constitutional experts fully understand the prescribed impeachment process. He isn't afraid of anything except he doesn't want to participate in an unconstitutional process. If the House wanted certain witnesses to testify, why didn't they call them? What was the hurry? Now there seems to be no hurry as they haven't submitted the articles to the Senate and they have recessed until January. Why is it up to McConnell to pull Nancy's chestnuts out of the fire?

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

bylm1-Bernie wrote:

I don't think you Constitutional experts fully understand the prescribed impeachment process. He isn't afraid of anything except he doesn't want to participate in an unconstitutional process. If the House wanted certain witnesses to testify, why didn't they call them? What was the hurry? Now there seems to be no hurry as they haven't submitted the articles to the Senate and they have recessed until January. Why is it up to McConnell to pull Nancy's chestnuts out of the fire?

The dems tried the only way to call is to use a subpeona and Trump and the adminstration are fighting them all.

federally indicted mattoid

Fearful fat falsegod
Tainted teenage trafficker (oops, his friend JE might fit that alliteration better)
Bloviating bullshit bast***

Get your spoons out republicans. He's going to be feeding you another steaming pile soon.

bylm1-Bernie

zombinis3 wrote:

The dems tried the only way to call is to use a subpeona and Trump and the adminstration are fighting them all.

Why help em?

Tug484

rjoeholl wrote:

Usually, if a prosecuting party wants to hear a defense, they will make a solid accusation and stick to it. But during the House debacle all we heard was accusations that kept changing every two days. If I were McConnell I'd tell Nancy to Pizz up a rope and give her a statement signed by all republican senators saying they will not accept any articles until they are obtained "fairly".

zillaorange

bylm1-Bernie wrote:

Why help em?

Got that RIGHT !

son of witless

Kevyn wrote:

Without assurance of a fair trial they can’t effectively confront the imminent threat, Pelosi is carefully playing the hand corrupt sycophant republicans under Moscow Mitch have handed her and she is doing it well.

Pelosi is not following the precedent of previous impeachments, nor is she following the spirit of the Constitution. The House indicts, the Senate has the trial, end of story. Pelosi has nothing to do with the Senate. She cannot play games to get the result she wishes for. The House and Senate are separate entities.

federally indicted mattoid

bylm1-Bernie wrote:

Why help em?

Yeah!!! Why help your countrymen when you can help Russia instead?

bylm1-Bernie

useful mattoid 45 wrote:

Yeah!!! Why help your countrymen when you can help Russia instead?

Now there's an asinine comment for you.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

rjoeholl wrote:

So, in other words the impeachment farce wasn't all that important.

Well, it was important but for us exactly the way the didn't want it to go. 2 non-crimes and 180 days until their articles are rescinded. I don't see it happening, do you?