Senate “trial” is a fait accompli so why play McConnell’s game?

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/474813-collins-distances-herself-from-mcconnell-talk-of-impeachment-coordination

“Jurors” are meeting with the regime to get talking points and strategies. Expect no witnesses nor any defense.

I think that Pelosi ought to not send the articles to the Senate and deny the “victory”. Perhaps wait until SCOTUS decides on the subpoenas, then hold new hearings.

In any case, this is setting up to be about as fair a trial as a KKK member would have gotten in Mississippi for killing a black man in 1930. Why give an acquittal when an effective nol pross will provide room for additional evidence and testimony should his actions warrant.

Besides, do we really need a precedent of gross abuse of power as acceptable behavior for any president? The office is already way too powerful. Let’s not allow this man to turn the presidency into royalty.

The election is 11 months out. Deny the win for Trump and move on to the issues.

IMHO

19 thoughts on “Senate “trial” is a fait accompli so why play McConnell’s game?

  1. A Senate trial would provide an opportunity for the 8 witnesses tha Schiff and Nadler wouldn’t allow to testify under oath. I would be particularly interested in hearing from Alexandra Chalupa testfy about the DNC collusion with Ukrainian oligarchs to work against Trump in the 2016 election. That would certainly justify an investigation by Ukraine into that time period,

    Like

    1. “ But McConnell opposes witnesses now that Trump is up for impeachment. The Senate majority leader is pressing for a short trial and a vote on the articles of impeachment sometime soon after the trial gets underway.”

      “Speaking to Fox’s Sean Hannity last week, McConnell explained why he opposes extending a trial by having witnesses even as he indicated no final decisions have been made and he would “take my cues” from Trump’s lawyers on the issue.”

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/politics/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-witnesses-flip-flop/index.html

      I don’t think Chalupa would help Trump. Most, if not all, the conspiracy about her and Ukraine have no basis in fact.

      Plus McConnell knows that no witnesses are going to help, period. Especially if Trump’s buds like Pompeo and company have to testify.

      Like I wrote, it’s a done deal. The fix is in.

      Or, as Trump’s mentor, Roy Cohn, would say “who’s the judge” when filing another nuisance suit against a vendor he wanted to stiff.

      Same crap, different stall.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. If Chalupa’s testimony would not have benefited Trump, Nadler wouldn’t have blocked her.

        The same is likely true of the other 7 he would not allow. He blocked them because he did not want them heard under oath.

        Or at least that is what we must assume in view of his refusal to let them be heard.

        Like

          1. You forgot Bolton.

            But sure, they should have been allowed to testify under normal circumstances, with White House counsel present to assert Executive Privilege where appropriate.

            But if there is to be cooperation, due process must be allowed. That means both sides decide which witnesses they wish to call, both sides get to provide rebuttal witnesses and cross examine witnesses.

            And of course, you do not allow your own attorneys to testify to matters of fact not under oath, as Nadler allowed.

            Trump is absolutely right not to cooperate in a one sided kangaroo court unless required to do so, one item at a time, by the courts.

            Like

          2. I’d agree to the “bring them all in’ senecio, but my concern would be the use of executive privilege to keep the relevant facts/truth from coming to light.

            Not sure about Nadler’s motivation.

            As to Bolton; I want his book to come out in the spring to insure trump’s defeat in November…

            Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “if Trump wanted to prove his innocence to the American people”

            In our system, no one has to prove their innocence to anyone.

            Like

        1. “ That means both sides decide which witnesses they wish to call, both sides get to provide rebuttal witnesses and cross examine witnesses.”

          So what is supposed to take place in the Senate? I thought that where the actual trial is supposed to take place. Where rebuttals, cross-examination, etc.

          Of course we know now that it won’t. McConnell and Trump have cut a deal.

          Which is why I think Pelosi should tell McConnell to shove it, hold the articles until SCOTUS or the election.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. What is most disturbing is the Senators who will sit as the jury for the trial take an oath to be “impartial jurors”. How is that impartiality even possible with McConnell saying he is following the direction of the White House and the President, and Lindsay Graham saying he doesn’t need to hear anything, he has already made up his mind.

            If you were siting for jury duty, you have to prove through your statements that you can be impartial in meting out justice. The statements by McConnell and Graham (at a minimum) are a violation of the oath they take as Senators, similar to McConnell’s preventing even a hearing for Obama’s SCOTUS appointment.

            The new motto of the GOP could be: “The Constitution. Meh, who needs it”.

            Like

  2. Shortly after the 2016 election, the political left and cheerleaders on like-minded network TV stations…initially promoted the idea that Electoral College members can and should vote for Hillary Clinton.

    That was quickly followed by impeaching the man…which began in earnest back in January, 2017. I watched them do those very things.

    After reading testimony from closed-door proceedings and watching what has been broadcast on CSPAN (grand jury proceedings)? To date, I don’t see anything worthy of removing him from office, let alone impeachment.

    What I do see are comparable parallels to how the feds got Al Capone. They couldn’t get him on serious charges…rather they got him on tax evasion.

    Like

    1. Apparently you and I interpret 52 USC 30121 very differently.

      Even putting that aside “bribery” is an impeachable offense. I don’t think the confession to extortion/bribery provided by the President is a Capone-like side issue. Rather it serves as a smoking gun.

      The pre-history you cite is irrelevant.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Funny you should “defend” the president using the Al Capone theory of justice. The IRS could also take down Trump if his taxes were turned over.

      Fred Trump was the master at screwing his own country out of taxes via cheating. Fruit falls near the good, ole tree.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Defending President Trump? Nope.

        Just my observation that what I’ve read and heard regarding these impeachable offenses.

        The IRS (as well as state tax agencies) can take him down at any time should they choose.

        Like

  3. RE: “why play McConnell’s game?”

    Why, indeed. The House Democrats have already shown themselves to be disreputable and without honor. Voting to send the unconstitutional articles of impeachment to the Senate won’t change that. It makes perfect sense for them to quit now and try to blame the Republicans for their own failures.

    Like

    1. “ In our system, no one has to prove their innocence to anyone.”

      That’s the principle. And it is partly true. But if the evidence is clear and the accused just clams up, he will be convicted. In an adversarial system you are expected to mount a defense.

      Of course it is moot when the judge and jury are all golfing buds with the defendant.

      Like mentor Cohn said, “who’s the judge”.

      Liked by 3 people

        1. I know I shouldn’t do this.

          If you are charged with a crime and in court all the evidence points to you as the perp but you say you have an alibi then it is up to you to prove your alibi is valid. Your say so is not enough.

          In a real courtroom, the evidence so far all points to an effort to get dirt on a possible political opponent by withholding desperately needed military assistance from a country fighting for its very existence. If Trump mounts no defense, he would be convicted.

          Fortunately for him, the trial is rigged and the fix is in. Always has been for that matter. So he will remain president and life goes on.

          Simple as that.

          Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s