Article

2019-12-18 Home Front: Politix

McConnell Suggests Senate Will Move to Dismiss Impeachment After Opening Arguments

[Breitbart] Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) hinted in a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday morning that the Senate will move to dismiss the pending articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump after opening arguments in the expected trial.

McConnell was reacting to a proposal by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Monday that the Senate call four additional, in-person witnesses that were not called, or not available, during the House inquiry, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA).

But McConnell dismissed that suggestion out of hand, arguing that Schumer was trying to make "Chairman Schiff's sloppy work more persuasive." McConnell accused Schumer of going straight to the news media with his proposals rather than speaking to him in person, as Senate leaders had done in the past.

He also noted that Schumer had misquoted the Constitution.

Ouch. A bludgeon, not a scalpel.

The Democrat leader had claimed the Constitution gave the Senate "sole Power of Impeachment," whereas Article I, Section 3 actually states, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." "We don't create impeachments over here … we judge them," he declared.

It was the House's role to investigate, and to build a case. "If they fail, they fail! It's not the Senate's job to leap into the breach to search desperately for ways to get to guilty. That would hardly be impartial justice." The Senate would not, he said, participate in "new fact-finding" that House Democrats were "too impatient" to pursue.

Posted by Elmereger Clavins7805 2019-12-18 06:19|| || Front Page|| [11136 views ] Top

#1 I should think standard procedure would be to call an immediate informal vote of Dismiss/Proceed to see if they go forward or not. Juries often do that sort of thing to save time and see who needs further convincing.

Posted by rjschwarz 2019-12-18 11:01|| 2019-12-18 11:01|| Front Page Top

#2 Why are they complaining? The whole affair is a complete Shitshow.

It's straight out of "Through the Looking Glass": "Sentence first---verdict afterward!" cried the Queen of Hearts

Posted by Lex 2019-12-18 11:07|| 2019-12-18 11:07|| Front Page Top

#3 RJ for the win.

I'm not sure I'd want to go up against McConnell on matters of parliamentary procedure. Pretty sure I'd be wrong-footed.

Dems are too stupid and arrogant to see they're out of their depth.

Posted by Lex 2019-12-18 13:05|| 2019-12-18 13:05|| Front Page Top

#4 McConnell accused Schumer of going straight to the news media with his proposals...
I have heard that the most dangerous place in the world is to stand in the path between Schumer and a TV Camera --- Jump out of the way or be trampled by Schumer running to get more face time.

Posted by magpie 2019-12-18 13:46|| 2019-12-18 13:46|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm hoping they would call Schiff, Nader, Pelosi, and the alledged Whistleblower to testify under oath as to the charges and present their actual. non-heresy, evidence - again under oath.

Humiliate them. Espeiallly Schiff. Allow the Republican members of the House comittees to ask all the questions they want.

Posted by CrazyFool 2019-12-18 20:08|| 2019-12-18 20:08|| Front Page Top

#6 When I was a jury foreman on a civil case of a lady who got her car rear ended in the ice, and wanted damages from the insurance company for her whiplash injury.

So we went around the room and each juror spoke his or her piece on if she should have damages, how much, and why.

What we found from the git go was that her trooping through things (having a pack on and riding to school in her mountain bike aggravated her original injury, along with other actions, made it impossible for the jury to tell what the original injury resulted in and subsequent injuries resulted in her behavior.

The insurance company was willing to pay $6000. That is what we gave her. We were done in an hour. The judge came in afterwords and discussed the case and our reasoning and he was satisfied. He is now the chief justice of the state supreme court. We could not justify that the preponderance of evidence supported her calculated $87K claim.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2019-12-18 20:29|| 2019-12-18 20:29|| Front Page Top

#7 #5 I'm hoping they would call Schiff, Nader, Pelosi, and the alledged Whistleblower to testify under oath as to the charges and present their actual. non-heresy, evidence - again under oath.

This is exactly what "Cocaine Mitch" wants to prevent.

They're not on our side.

Posted by charger 2019-12-18 21:42|| 2019-12-18 21:42|| Front Page Top

16:27 Gravilet Snanter4154
16:20 Chaise Speaking for Boskone7897
16:02 Skidmark
16:01 Skidmark
15:46 Skidmark
15:41 Skidmark
15:37 swksvolFF
15:36 Skidmark
15:34 Skidmark
15:27 Skidmark
14:48 NoMoreBS
14:31 NoMoreBS
14:16 NoMoreBS
14:15 NoMoreBS
14:04 swksvolFF
13:47 Regular joe
13:43 swksvolFF
13:38 swksvolFF
13:34 swksvolFF
13:31 Abu Uluque
13:25 Heribertus Vedente
13:24 mossomo
13:20 Abu Uluque
13:14 mossomo