Nancy Pelosi will not allow the House to impeach Trump.
Instead, citing the proximity to the 2020 election, she will claim she wants to leave it to the voters.
She knows the Senate will not remove Trump, and as long as Schiff is running the show, the Democrats have a free hand at slandering the President and Republicans in general.
But, if it goes to the Senate, Republicans will be calling the witnesses and controlling the debate. Schiff will be called as a witness, and will either have to admit the ‘Whistleblower’ was a setup by his office or he will have to perjure himself under oath before the Senate.
Hunter Biden will be called and the corruption of the Biden family will be on full display. Countless other skeletons will be dragged out for public view.
The Justice Dept investigations will have been completed and the Deep State operatives that had a part in obstructing normal operations of the State Dept, requiring alternate channels.
Numerous intelligence agency officials will be perjury trapped and referred for prosecution.
In short, the Democrats do not dare allow the other side a forum to be heard.
So, no impeachment and a sudden desire to ‘get on with the people’s business.’
Merry Christmas.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Interesting thought, and not without merit. The inquiry itself has pulled trump and his corrupt Administration’s pants down around their ankles enough that any aware and thoughtful individual would vote for Mickey or Minnie in 2020 rather than continue to enable this blight on our great country.
As usual with predictions time will tell.
Tick, tick, tick….
LikeLiked by 4 people
I said she would try, I didn’t say it would work.
The Senate will have the results of John Durham and IG Horowitz’s investigations as a starting point to have investigations of their own.
Then the fun begins, because these investigations will be dealing with real crimes, not fantasies.
LikeLike
“Senate will have the results of John Durham and IG Horowitz’s”
There is a sucker born every minute.
But, hey, thanks for the opinion from the Bizzarro Universe. Where everything is the opposite of reality.
Patriotic Americans trying to protect us from a hostile foreign power are criminals. The established fact that the President orchestrated a bribery and extortion scheme is a fantasy. Yeah, riiiiight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It sounds like you are advising the Trump defense. If the articles of impeachment don’t get to the Senate that is proof that Biden was corrupt, Schiff hired the Whistleblower, all diplomats are Deep State insurgents, Giuliani was a patriot to set up an alternate path and maybe, just maybe Putin is not a liar.
Pretty slick.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m curious.
Do you not believe Manafort gave Trump campaign internal polling information to Russian intelligence?
That Donald, Jr. was really expecting to discuss adoption in the meeting?
That Trump was just guessing about some email leaks coming soon?
That our intelligence was lying about Russian interference?
That the FBI should just have ignored such evidence?
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Tabor
“real crimes, not fantasies.”
Something that is quite “real” and should be very concerning is the use of non-secure communication channels for US foreign policy discussions. Our adversaries, Russia/Putin in particular now have information that can be used as leverage to blackmail those involved.
The betrayal of our Country on open display for those willing to crack an eyelid and are NOT a “fantasy”.
Our standing in the world has been diminished and the sooner we remove the cancer at the top the better.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jordan was complaining that they couldn’t interview the Whistleblower because he was the one who started this whole mess.
A Democrat responded that if they wanted to question the person who started it, Trump was welcome to testify any time.
All the president has to do is tell the truth. Straight from the man himself. What’s so hard about that? And then we can get back to the nation’s business.
Heck, if Bill Clinton had not lied about where he kept his cigars, he wouldn’t have been impeached.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The principles of fairness in judicial fairness are enshrined in the 6th Amendment and include “… to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
Clever responses aside, President Trump has been afforded none of those in these hearings.
There was a time when you would have been offended by that no matter who the subject was.
LikeLike
Yes, and ALL of those rights apply ONLY to criminal trials, of which NONE, zip, nada, 0% of this impeachment and Senate trial (if one) is a criminal trial.
But be of good cheer, someday it might be.
Now, do ya suppose the Clintons and Bidens would have received ANY of the 4th, 5th, 6th, & 14th rights in a publicized SBU investigation orchestrated by Trump?
LikeLiked by 3 people
The closed door hearings are similar to police investigations before the grand jury. Getting depositions, interviewing witnesses, etc. if you were being investigated for fraud, would you sit in on the FBI interviews before charges were filed?
Impeachment is roughly equivalent to a grand jury but with more rights accorded the defendant.
The hearings are public and witnesses can be cross examined by the defendants party and its lawyers. The grand jury just provides a venue for the prosecutor to lay out his case.
The trial, with all rights and privileges, is in the Senate. But the jury in this case consists mostly of the president’s friends. And the judge is a Republican.
Why on earth is that offensive? The defendant is accorded more protection than the average person by a huge margin.
You should be thrilled…or offended. Not me.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If Impeachment were the equivalent of Grand Jury proceedings, they would be held in secrecy to protect the reputations of those under investigation and to avoid prejudicing a future jury with information obtained through unfair and often, unlawful, means.
The future jury, in this case, is not really the Senate, but the voters.
In effect, the Democrats are using subpoena power for opposition research and making public only those tidbits harmful to the President while refusing to allow release of exculpatory testimony from the depositions.
That, combined with the collusion of a partisan press, has made these proceedings nothing more than free TV time for the Democrats 2020 campaign. (If you are thinking of denying the partisan nature of the press, consider that within hours of a Democrat Party focus group determining that ‘bribery’ tested better that than ‘quid pro quo’ that was the only term the press was using, Far to soon for it to have spread, it could only have been transmitted)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-shift-rhetoric-from-quid-pro-quo-to-bribery-after-impeachment-focus-groups
So, no, this is not at all like a Grand Jury, it is a pure abuse of the Congressional oversight powers as a political tool, and that is far more dangerous to our country than anything a foreign government could do.
LikeLike
Re: “If Impeachment were the equivalent of Grand Jury proceedings, they would be held in secrecy to protect the reputations of those under investigation and to avoid prejudicing a future jury with information obtained through unfair and often, unlawful, means.”
Also, the crime or offense to be tried would be clearly specified. In fact, specification of the crime would have been necessary even before approaching the grand jury, merely to open an investigation.
The grand jury analogy doesn’t hold up. It does more to obscure reality than reveal it.
LikeLike
You are damned right that the Democrats have switched from latin (“quid pro quo”) to English (“Bribery”). Impeachment is political process and NOT a legal process. All your confused argle bargle about the process (based on GOP rules and precedents) is a red herring designed to distract. Because it is a political process, it is important for the ultimate deciders, the public, to have a very clear understanding of exactly the crimes committed. “Bribery” is accurate and clear and, for good measure, is explicitly cited in the Constitution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re: “‘Bribery’ is accurate and clear and, for good measure, is explicitly cited in the Constitution.”
And yet, no evidence of bribery has been made public. The DOJ’s Office of Legal Council rejected bribery as a basis for the whistleblower’s original complaint. As a result, the word is just a piece of spaghetti thrown at the wall in the midst of Schiff’s inquiry to see if it will stick.
Grand juries don’t operate this way.
LikeLike
@Roberts
“And yet no evidence of bribery has been made public.”
Now, that is just plain sad.
And, with Barr as the AG, any opinion by the DOJ is totally suspect. He has proven that his loyalty is to Trump not the truth, the country or the Constitution. In this case, whatever opinion the DOJ expressed (where there was no provision in the Whistleblower law for their involvement) was based on the Whistleblower complaint and not on the compelling evidence that has now been developed by the Impeachment process.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Retired General McCaffrey was interviewed on the radio the other day. I only caught part of it.
Asked about the impeachment inquiry, he said that as a general he would never start a battle he wasn’t positive of winning. And unless some amazing evidence comes out, the Senate won’t convict. He said it was a probable loser for the Democrats and could very well cost them the election in 2020.
I tend to agree for that reason.
I think all the other outcomes you listed are based on spurious conspiracies. Hey, I’ve been wrong before. I remember it was 1967 or 68…
LikeLiked by 3 people
After tonight’s election, it will be interesting to see what the Republicans do.
Another Trumper loses. It is becoming increasingly clear that people, even in the South, are fed up with Trump and his clown act. And increasingly clear that the silly charges of socialism and racist fearmongering are working against Republicans, which began with Gillespie’s loss 2 years ago, John Bel Edwards deserved to be re-elected. He has measurably improved Louisiana’s economics, healthcare and education, and I take great comfort that we will never hear of Bobby Jindal again, who was a grossly incompetent and ineffective governor, as are almost all Republican governors except Baker and Hogan who are basically Democrats.
The Senate chose to excuse Bill Clinton’s lies, and Gore paid the price for it. If Moscow Mitch and his brethren chose to excuse Trump’s lies, extortion, money laundering, tax evasion, etc. etc. I believe Collins, Ernst, McSally and Gardner are certainly toast. From there, the question is whether Jones keeps his seat in AL, and Republican Perdue in GA loses his, to say nothing of even Cornyn and McConnell facing a loss as Trump becomes increasingly ill.
Of course, after today’s visit to Walter Reed, about which the White House is clearly lying, Trump may not be around anyway.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I would not read too much into the Louisiana election, That’s my home state, and things are complicated there.
Note that the Sect of State, which is a big deal there, went to the GOP candidate by 61% to 39%.
This was a personal defeat not a party defeat.
LikeLike
Apparently, this time the GOP’s candidate didn’t have a prison record.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump came out in support of the GOP Gubernatorial candidate, as he did in KY (And actually attended an election eve rally to support him). Two deeply RED states that rejected, it appears, Trumpism. Right. Don’t read too much into it because you might see that the tide is turning. And it is NOT in a pro-Trump direction.
The AG’s in both cases were not running as Trumpettes.
LikeLike
Schiff is an embarrassment, eh?
LikeLike
Canadian opinion?
If it is “an embarrassment” to perform your patriotic duty and uphold your oath of office then I’d agree that Schiff is extremely embarrassing.
My hope is that more elected officials start to embarrass themselves and remove the Gaslighter in Chief from office ASAP.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Schiff is an embarrassment, eh?
You meant to type “Trump”, right? Or are being ironic? I hope.
But if somehow you are serious . . . Uh, no he is not. He has been fair and effective and focused in spite of the ridiculous antics of people like “Gym” Jordan. One of the pillars of our American system is the ability to hold those in power accountable for their behavior. Schiff is doing exactly that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nah, they’ll impeach ‘im.
Why work so hard when Moscow Mitch will do the heavy lifting? Mitch is busy raising the 51 votes he needs to just table the trial altogether. So far, they figure that he’s lost Mitt and Susan, maybe Lisa. But, you can rest assured he’s pumping on some Red State Democrats to replace them. Mitch ain’t a complete dummy. There’s a risk in trying to make the trial a spectacle just to mock the evidence. Look, he managed to go 8 years without once using the n-word for Obama… in public, so he’s composed.
Ultimately, tabling would be the best thing for the Democrats too, they get the last word, and it is in keeping with Mitch’s “Gee, 1000 (hyperbola) days is too close to the election to appoint a new Justice…” theme.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Re: “Nancy Pelosi will not allow the House to impeach Trump.”
Makes sense to me. At best, impeaching Trump in the House creates a Democratic talking point in the upcoming election. That’s not worth much, and might even work against Democrats, no matter what the Senate does.
LikeLike
A possibility but this has gone too far to back down now. Republicans have been shredding the supposed “witnesses” and it makes sense to quit while you still think you are ahead but quitting is an admission of defeat. Let’s keep going so Schitt’s and all house Democrat’s partisan bafoonery can be on full display and challenged. Pelosi, are you still trying to corral the cats or did you give up?
LikeLike
Republicans “shredding witnesses”?
“Shirley” you jest.
They are grasping at straws in a windstorm.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The only partisan buffoonery on display is that of Nunes and the rest of the Trump munchkins on the panel. The continual tossing of conspiracy theories to attempt to confuse the facts is comical at best and criminal at worst. They have all sullied their oaths of office in defense of Trump.
The only shredding going on is that of what used to be the GOP, and is now the LOT (losers of Trump).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re: supposed “witnesses”
Hmmm, what is a real witness?
But, hey, I get it. If you do not have the emotional maturity to accept the message, attack the messenger. And sink to grade school level name-calling just like Dear Leader.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So nothing new beyond “it sounded irregular to me” from every supposed witness. The only ones on the edge of their seats are far left wing hyper-partisan democrats. Viewership of the inquiry is half of Mueller’s report and far lower than even Cohen’s testimoney. The entire “impeachable” focus of Democrats is an unprovable theory that Trump withheld aid to influence a foreign government for personal gain while glossing over the provable fact that Biden did just that, and he bragged about it. The Senate will correctly shoot it down as a partisan coup. And yes, after over 3 years of failed impeachment chest beating by Schitt and company, the large majority of voters have reached impeachment fatigue and could care less. Really bad for Democrats trying to rig the 2020 election.
LikeLike