December 15, 2019

"I am clearly made up my mind. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in the process."

Said Lindsey Graham, on "Face the Nation" (transcript).
MARGARET BRENNAN: The president has said he's heard you out on the merits of a short Senate trial, but he's going to do whatever he wants, he says. Should Republicans in the Senate really be taking their marching orders from the person being investigated?

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: You know, I understand the president's frustration, but I think what's best for the country is to get—get this thing over with. I am clearly made up my mind. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in the process. So I don't need any witnesses. The president can make a request to call witnesses. They can make a request or call Mike Pence and Pompeo and Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. I am ready to vote on the underlying articles. I don't really need to hear a lot of witnesses.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the president says he wants—he would love those individuals to testify. He says he wants evidence. He wants to make his case. Why are you opposed?

SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah, well, I'd tell the president, if somebody is ready to acquit you, I'd sort of get out of the way. If you start calling the witnesses the president wants and they're are going to start calling Mike Pence, you know, the secretary of State Pompeo, I don't think that's good for the country. I don't think it's good for the Senate. You need 51 votes to get a witness approved. I want to make my decision based on the trial record established in the House as a basis for impeachment. That's just me, one senator. But I think there's a general desire by a lot of senators to not turn this thing into a circus. I understand the president's frustration by being shut out of the house but I need to do what I think is best for the country....
So, clearly, he's not taking "marching orders" from Trump, and I don't really think Trump thinks he's giving marching orders. I assume Trump knows the Senate won't do what he's saying and that's why he feels free to say that's what he wants. After the quick acquittal, Trump can go to his rallies and say: I wanted so much more — and it would have proven so much about how perfect I was and how corrupt and sick the Democrats and the deep state — I call it the deep state — are — but the Senate said no. They wanted quick.  They kept saying quick. I wanted long, but they said quick, quick, we must be quick.
SEN. GRAHAM: This is the first impeachment trial being driven by partisan politicians conducted behind closed doors. The testimony was selectively leaked. The president was denied the ability to participate meaningful in the House hearing. And I want to end it. I have nothing but disdain for this. I'm trying to make myself clear. What you're doing in the House is bad for the presidency. You're impeaching the president of the United States in a matter of weeks, not months.... I think this whole thing is a crock. You're shutting the president out. The process in the House, any partisan group could do this in the future. You're weaponizing impeachment. And I want to end it. I don't want to legitimize it. I hate what they're doing.
He's contrasting this impeachment to the Clinton impeachment, when Graham supported a long procedure in the Senate. His answer is that the way the House played its role was so inappropriate — such a "crock" — that the Senate shouldn't dignify it with a full scale trial. The House has changed impeachment — "weaponized" it — and the Senate ought to respond in a way that disciplines the House and restores the traditional order.

I note that if the Senate does a full scale trial and accepts this notion that Senators must behave like jurors in court — who are rejected unless they begin with an unbiased mind and listen to the evidence and only decide based what they hear at trial — then the House could vote for impeachment after impeachment — why not a new impeachment every day? — and hobble the Senate with endless burdensome work. It doesn't make sense to interpret the Senate's role that way.

The Constitution gives the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say what "try" means and the Supreme Court made it clear in a 1993 case that "the word 'try' in the Impeachment Trial Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate."

Graham is claiming precisely that authority.

292 comments:

1 – 200 of 292   Newer›   Newest»
RMc said...

Only bad guys give or take "marching orders". The good guys are all independent thinkers, all of whom think the same way: the correct way.

rhhardin said...

and it would have proven so much about how perfect I was

Bad reading of Trump. It's not an actual claim but self-deprecating humor. Larger than life persona. But exaggeration in the right direction, is its political point.

Trump wanting to do his actual job.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I'm with Trump on this. Let's have lots of witnesses, really air this thing out.

Graham is a pussy.

holdfast said...

I will bet $1000 that he did not say “in the process” but rather “and the process”. Clearly the transcriber can’t do Southern.

wendybar said...

I want to see people go to prison for this Propaganda impeachment. I want all the liars strung up. If not, there will NEVER be trust for Government or their agencies again...EVER!!!

Leland said...

Graham's dirty too and a drawn out trial would likely expose that truth.

gspencer said...

"I don't really need to hear a lot of witnesses."

Speak for yourself, Lindsay. But the rest of the country needs to hear from witnesses and to see documents that will demonstrate just how corrupt and how contemptuous the Democrat Party is.

Birkel said...

Trump needs to "Drain the Swamp" and I'm not sure which way to acquittal gets us there. The Democratics have not outlined criminal behavior that supports impeachment. The idea that the FBI/CIA/DOJ/State made innocent mistakes is ridiculous on its face. Nobody - outside the small circle of people paid to pretend otherwise - believes the official Democratic line.

Even a paid Democratic like Chris Wallace knows it's garbage. George Snuffalupagus only talked about the political implications, even as he allowed Adam Schitt to lie with abandon.

It's a farce that people don't believe should amount to a hill of beans.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The Senate has "the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

That doesn't mean that they MUST hold a trial for each and every bogus claim that the partisan House of Representatives decides to regurgitate and throw up onto the Senate's table.

The Senate can decide that there is no merit in the claims of the House. The Senate can decide to just not decide anything at all. All that can be "trying" without ever approaching a trial.

I'm like Sen Graham. A long and protracted trial with more witnesses to nothing. More breathless 'fantom vapours'(Victorian Era reference) by the media. More division, screaming, posturing....all just going to drive the rest of us mad. Mad in more ways than one. Mad enough to try to do something ourselves.

Michael K said...

You need 51 votes to get a witness approved.

This is key. I agree with Graham as the weak kneed would waffle (mixed metaphors?) and never get to hear what we need to hear. Trump should just declassify the whole process used in the Mueller thing. FISA warrants to begin with.

Beasts of England said...

They’re all dirty and live by mutually assured destruction. The trial wanted by Trump could expose the broader corruption, so Graham just wants it to go away.

daskol said...

Incidentally this strategy also protects establishment politicians across both parties who've long had their hand in the cookie jar. Lindsay Graham is no dummy. Trump is no dummy. I would interpret Trump's threats for a long trial as aimed as much at GOPe as at Biden et al--best declare for me quick, people, or else we start turning over rocks. Trump wins any way this plays out, either with a trial or a summary dismissal of the crock charges.

wild chicken said...

Well good for Lindsey but he has his own issues with Ukraine, or so I hear.

The Clinton impeachment continues to embarrass.

rehajm said...

why not a new impeachment every day?

A hypothetical reality will likely mirror. What the Hell else could Democrats do for 10 months to try improve their lot- talk about policy?

Josephbleau said...

Brennan seems confused, the Senate will hold a trial. I think that the accused has much input and can call many shots, such as calling witnesses, crossing the prosecution’s witnesses, presenting a case. But if the judge dismisses the charges, the trial is finished.

madAsHell said...

Senator, I would love to hear the Bidens testify.

Wince said...

It doesn't say what "try" means and the Supreme Court made it clear in a 1993 case that "the word 'try' in the Impeachment Trial Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate."

The Democrats should listen to Donkey.

"Then you got to, got to try a little tenderness."

Big Mike said...

I suspect also that if they call the Biden (père et fils) then Democrat senators will be able to show that Graham and other Republican senators have had their own skeletons in the closet.

gilbar said...

the meet the press lady asks....
Should Republicans in the Senate really be taking their marching orders from the person being investigated?

She's got a GOOD POINT!
WHERE did Anyone EVER get this CRAZY idea, that someone being investigated has Any Business presenting a 'defense'??
Can we ALL AGREE, that IF/WHEN someone is investigated; that Means THEY ARE GUILTY AS SIN?
ONLY an Absolute CRIMINAL would attempt to mount a 'defense'. It is ones responsibility to bow your head in shame, and submit to punishment; When EVER one it being investigated.
This is the American Way! Anyone being investigated, is; by definition: GUILTY

Chuck said...

So; when Senator Graham takes the oath as a juror in the Senate trial, which is a different oath than what he took entering office as a Senator, he will be lying. This is that oath: ”I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of Donald Trump now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

There is now this video ricocheting all over Twitter, of what Graham said when he was a member of the House and an Impeachment Manager for the Clinton impeachment:

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1205860463373963265

Senator Graham, you said that Donald Trump was a "kook" and "unfit for office" and a lot more. You were right then. What happened?

Original Mike said...

"I note that if the Senate does a full scale trial and accepts this notion that Senators must behave like jurors in court — who are rejected unless they begin with an unbiased mind and listen to the evidence and only decide based what they hear at trial — then the House could vote for impeachment after impeachment — why not a new impeachment every day? — and hobble the Senate with endless burdensome work. It doesn't make sense to interpret the Senate's role that way."

Part of me wants the Senate to shine a bright light on the House process, but I think I'm coming around to this position; treat the House impeachment process with the disdain it deserves.

Narayanan said...

Can Senate censure the House or "Remand" for do over?!

Mr. Majestyk said...

"I wanted so much more — and it would have proven so much about how perfect I was and how corrupt and sick the Democrats and the deep state — I call it the deep state — are — but the Senate said no. They wanted quick. They kept saying quick. I wanted long, but they said quick, quick, we must be quick."

Althouse, you chaneled the President perfectly here.

Lucien said...

The Senate will likely make its own rules of procedure, and I'd like to see a rule allowing a motion to dismiss if it is supported by at least 125% of the members needed to acquit (i.e. 43). The theory would be there's no point in having a trial when acquittal seems certain. This would allow up to 10 Republicans to oppose the motion to dismiss, but still be able to say that it's not because they wanted to remove the President, but just that they wanted to have a trial on the merits. The hard part might be getting 51 senators (or 50 + Pence?) to approve the rule.

David Begley said...

Watch the Dems to call for Graham to recuse himself because he has already made up his mind before the trial. Bias!

Ann: Great imitation of Trumpspeak.

David Begley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

I only want to see one witness, the so-called whistle-blower. Otherwise, just vote.

Bay Area Guy said...

I find Margaret Brennan to be the least offensive of the Sunday morn talking heads, but she's still no Tim Russert.

Any sane person with clear eyes can see that the impeachment is a political farce. Former KGB chief Beria - "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime". So the question is, how do you respond to a legal and constitutional farce? A swift dismissal or a trial to expose the charlatans? Not sure. One thing I do know, we're gonna need sane Democrats like Van Drew to speak up or switch parties. Or perhaps, a nice shellacking of the socialists as the Brits just did, might do the trick.

Tommy Duncan said...

As much as I would love to see the actual facts presented in a Senate trial, I agree that it is time to end this farce. A swift acquittal would be a rebuke to the three year effort by House Democrats to impeach Trump. Of course, the media/Democrat cabal will paint an acquittal as partisan and an abuse of power.

Sadly, I don't see a way to prevent the Democrats from continuing their impeachment mania. They appear to be prepared to continue impeachment hearings until they get what they want. The founding fathers did not anticipate the behavior of the radical left.

Bob Boyd said...

There are surely a lot of cans of worms still on the shelf, Lindsay figures. Let's not open them.
He thinks like a lawyer and a politician, naturally.

Trump thinks like Trump.

rcocean said...

Funny how Mittens has shut up. Is that because he's going to vote with the Democrats?

Michael said...

: I wanted so much more — and it would have proven so much about how perfect I was and how corrupt and sick the Democrats and the deep state...

Althouse nails it. Trump's talking points for 2020 will be deep state, fake news and Hunter Biden.

rcocean said...

This is NOT a normal Impeachment. This is fake, partisan impeachment. The Senate Not only SHOULD treat this with contempt, they MUST treat it with contempt, otherwise Pelosi will be impeaching Trump every other Sunday.

THis is a clown show, and the Senate needs to laugh it out of Town.

Big Mike said...

The founding fathers did not anticipate the behavior of the radical left.

Sure they did. Ten and a half months from now we the people get a chance to correct things.

rcocean said...

Pelosi: How dare the Senate treat our partisan, rushed-through impeachment articles in a partisan rushed-through manner.

Sebastian said...

"I have disdain for the accusations in the process."

So do I. Graham is right.

"This is the first impeachment trial being driven by partisan politicians conducted behind closed doors."

Graham is right.

"What you're doing in the House is bad for the presidency. You're impeaching the president of the United States in a matter of weeks, not months.... I think this whole thing is a crock."

So do I. Graham is right.

"I don't want to legitimize it. I hate what they're doing."

So do I. Graham is right

"The House has changed impeachment — "weaponized" it — and the Senate ought to respond in a way that disciplines the House and restores the traditional order."

Right. So, Althouse, have you decided yet that you despise the Dems, as destroyers of "traditional order" and haters of everything you value, enough to resolve to vote against them, once and for all? Or does your love of abortion still override you contempt for Dem shenanigans? Or are you still waiting to "see what happens"?

Amadeus 48 said...

I am an agnostic on this, but I think Graham is right. Trump can campaign in any venue, including the Senate, but this whole impeachment stunt is a busted flush for the Dems. I think Althouse is exactly right on what Trump will do with a short proceeding. He never gets to do what he wants (heh)!

Ray - SoCal said...

Agree with Michael K,

>Trump should just declassify the whole process used in the Mueller thing. FISA warrants
> to begin with.

My gut feeling is Trump is a master of timing, and is just waiting for the right time to dominate the press cycle. Right now impeachment is dominating it, and then you have Christmas and New Years.

Stephen said...

President Trump is going for the Perry Mason result, not only having the case dismissed but also unmasking the real culprits. “Bailiff, take Mr. Schiff into custody.”

pacwest said...

"Senator Graham, you said that Donald Trump was a "kook" and "unfit for office" and a lot more. You were right then. What happened?"

He was intelligent enough to realize that TDS is a disease that can be overcome? It takes some self reflection to overcome a self imposed mental affliction. Not everyone can do it.

Ray - SoCal said...

Graham helped transport the dossier to McCain, so his new found Trumpness is suspect.

My guess is Graham is doing damage control for the institutional corruption. The lack of calling witnesses, etc is telling. Both to date, as well as for the impeachment trial.

McConnell is also doing damage control for the chamber of commerce, and against the Trumpian wave.

I am still surprised at how little got done by the so called GOP house and Senate in the first two years of Trump's term. Actions speak louder than words. Especially after the death of McCain, especially in the lame duck session.

Charlie Eklund said...

Senator Graham rightly points out that “this whole thing is a crock”. If true, in a sane world, the response to that would be “Hear, hear! Case dismissed.”

Not in this world, sadly. A republic, if you can keep it, indeed.

Bob Boyd said...

But the rest of the country needs to hear from witnesses and to see documents that will demonstrate just how corrupt and how contemptuous the Democrat Party is.

But it won't just be Democrats exposed. Lindsay knows that.

David Begley said...

Chris Wallace just questioned the impartiality of juror Mitch McConnell.

Big Mike said...

I see that ARM (8:56) is in favor of a lengthy trial. Then it must be bad for the people of the United States.

Ken B said...

It would be nice to have a full airing. But Graham makes an important point, highlighted by Althouse: if the house process is a sham it is an abuse not a real impeachment and the senate should treat it so. As I said I want a trial but I want it for political effect; there is a case for refusing to let that happen.

Yancey Ward said...

Everybody in Congress has already made up their mind. The Democrats are just lying about it is all that is happening.

Skeptical Voter said...

Ah Ms. Lindsey is doing his Supreme Court thing and denying certiorari. He just doesn't want to hear this case.

On balance he's probably right to say "shut this circus down". It's too bad that the circus ringmasters, Pencil Neck, Fat Jer and La Pelosi don't get their just whuppin' on the witness stand.

But Trump can talk about it all in rallies, and whip up enthusiasm. Meanwhile Barr and Dunham go about their work. I'd like to see Schiff in jail, but I'll settle for Comey.

Birkel said...

Racist fopdoodle: The House has no limitations for what it can claim are impeachable.

Also racist fopdoodle: The Senate must do things according to Hoyle.

Americans: Fuck off, Leftist Collectivist scum.

Ken B said...

Michael K is right too about declassifying everything. I hope his team is assembling an index of revelations of swamp turpitude right now to go along with the evidence.

Matt Sablan said...

"I'm with Trump on this. Let's have lots of witnesses, really air this thing out."

-- We had lots of witnesses in the House. We got hearsay and justifications for why Trump thought Biden was dirty -- even Obama was worried about that appearance! An honest House would never have moved this forward because they haven't the evidence to reach a conviction in anything but a political process.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Chris Wallace has lost his mind. He's just another Jenn Rubin.

Francisco D said...

I'm with Trump on this. Let's have lots of witnesses, really air this thing out.

Let me make a small amendment to your statement, ARM:

Let's have a lot of FACT witnesses to air this thing out. I don't want to hear a bunch of blatherers and people who heard that other people said that .... yadda, yadda, yadda.

It should be held according to standard judicial procedures. I want to hear what the Bidens have to say as well as Eric Ciamarella and Adam Schiff, under penalty of perjury.

madAsHell said...

Trump should just declassify the whole process used in the Mueller thing.

When I worked in defense contracting, things were classified because they were expensive, and we can't let the public know. I'm sure the incentives haven't changed.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

F*ck Colorado's Jason Crow(D). He is a treasonous snot nosed leftist.

Matt Sablan said...

"This is NOT a normal Impeachment."

-- We've had so few, there's really no way to tell what is and is not normal in the process.

Matt Sablan said...

"Let's have a lot of FACT witnesses to air this thing out. I don't want to hear a bunch of blatherers and people who heard that other people said that .... yadda, yadda, yadda."

-- I would also like it if witnesses were not allowed to question other witnesses.

jnseward said...

Lindsey is right. Nobody wants any more of this crap. Woe unto him by whom it cometh. Trump has already won. Don't keep selling after the close.

CWJ said...

Althouse,

You've got a future writing Trump impressions. That was good.

MBunge said...

The arguments for the Senate to just dismiss this impeachment nonsense out of hand are strong, but for one thing.

ALL the available evidence is that the attempt to rally support for impeaching Trump has not only failed it has had the opposite effect. Both in the public at large and within the hall of Congress, there is actually LESS support for impeaching Trump than there was when this most recent mess started.

AND THE TRUMP HATERS DON'T CARE. THEY DON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR FAILURE.

These people are like a death cult and often the only way to break such a cult is to give it all the "death" it wants. A long Senate trial with lots of Trump-requested witnesses would be long and ugly and terribly destructive to whatever public comity still exists. It may unfortunately be the only thing that ultimately purges the present madness from the public body.

Mike

Francisco D said...

These people are like a death cult and often the only way to break such a cult is to give it all the "death" it wants.

If I were a DC Democrat politico, I would avoid any offers of Kool-Aid from fellow Democrats. You never know.

Smerdyakov said...

Echoing Mr.Majestyk.

I wanted so much more — and it would have proven so much about how perfect I was and how corrupt and sick the Democrats and the deep state — I call it the deep state — are — but the Senate said no. They wanted quick. They kept saying quick. I wanted long, but they said quick, quick, we must be quick.

I can hear Trump saying that.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The reason that we as a country need to get this impeachment theater over ASAP is

We are not getting anything else done.

1. It is holding up negotiations with foreign countries. Treaties, agreements, etc. China, Korea, and everyone else are just stalling, waiting and hoping that they may not have to deal with Trump and perhaps get a sympathetic socialist in the White House who will not hold their feet to the fire. And why not. If you think you may not have to deal with the current asshole in charge and get a better deal later...you just wait. You don't HAVE to make a deal.

Meanwhile we are all in danger with this waiting game.

2. The business of the Country is not being done. Laws that Congress should pass. Regulations that need to be changed, reviewed. Taxes. All the things that these Congress Critters are supposed to be doing are not being done. Do nothing Congress to say the least.

3. The longer this goes on, the more divided the population is becoming. This is very dangerous. People are taking sides that are diametrically opposed, becoming violent about their positions..... and many others just tuning out of the entire process. This is a recipe for Civil War.

It is like having an abscess, a boil. You need to lance it and get the infection out or it will fester and kill the body.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Could it be that Lindsey is helping organize the coup? Let’s say he gets 30 Republican Senators to boycott the trial out of “disdain”. Then the Democrats would have two-thirds of the Senators present to vote for conviction.

Mr. Groovington said...

Yes, it was a good Trump impression AA. Humour isn't your strong point but that was pretty funny. Do more please and we'll critique them.

Browndog said...

It seems we're still stuck on "long, protracted trail" or no trial at all.

How about call a few witnesses to impeach the lying dems and their lying witnesses, then vote?

JackWayne said...

It’s probable that only one article will be voted out of the House now that SCOTUS has acted to hear Trump’s 3 cases. so abuse of power is all they have. I think the reason that Graham doesn’t want to truly try the case is for the simple reason that it goes to the heart of the War Powers Act. That’s a can of worms no Senator wants to open. No one wants to clearly define what the President may or may not do to Take Care to faithfully carry out the laws.

Narayanan said...

Ray - SoCal said...
Graham helped transport the dossier to McCain, so his new found Trumpness is suspect ...
_____&&&&&------

I call for putting Graham to digging up McCain to hang him.

stevew said...

No expert on the law and Constitution I, but it appears to me Lindsey Graham is focused on Constitutional principle and against exclusively partisan political impeachment. Trump, with his calls for witnesses and a long trial, is playing the politics game - he believes he will benefit politically in his re-election bid by drawing this out.

I say he's already won as much as he will. If Graham is successful and the impeachment trial is brought to a speedy conclusion Trump's campaign will benefit from the ability to focus on the successes of his first three years.

Of course there is a better than zero chance, as someone above mentions, that the Dems will just move on to another round of impeachment theater - they've go nowhere else to go.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jersey Fled said...

If Graham has to recuse himself, then so does every Democrat senator. They've all expressed their contempt for Trump early and often. Impeachment doesn't require impartiality, only that everyone do their constitutional duty.

Also, just because we don't hear testimony from Biden et al doesn't mean that this is over. There are still Barr and Durham out there. And who knows, maybe the press will get religion and maybe do their job. (HaHaHaHa...)

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Don't fall for the left's BS. Drag it out in the senate.

First - DEMAND Adam Schitt's phone records. I'd bet dollars to donuts that it would prove contact with the whistle-blower- Eric Charamella.

Then, read the IG report out loud. RE-run that so CNN and MSNBC can cut away. Then Get the Ukrainians on the stand. Get that all out there.

+ more more more. Remind everyone of Adams' Schitt's soviet backroom deal underground chamber of lies.

Remember- if the Senate gets this over quickly - the Democrats have promised to impeach Trump again. They have a big bag o Schitt-lies they can use.

elkh1 said...

If the Senate held a long trial, calling witnesses including Schiff, the so-called whistle blowers, even Ukrainians to nail the Democrats so they dared not bring up another Impeachment. If Graham closed the thing now, they could accuse him of cover up, then Impeachment became he-said, she-said.

A long trial is good, more entertaining than Dem debates. When Trump is vindicated, his approval will shoot off the roof and Republicans will take the House, and the Senate.

chuck said...

I'm with Graham. The following twitter meltdown would be entertaining.

Yancey Ward said...

There is a different strategy available to the Republicans that I haven't seen discussed. Dismiss the impeachment articles the House passes this week, and then hold hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow Trump to clear himself by presenting the witnesses he wants. This has the benefit of ending the impeachment and punishing the Democrats for their overreach.

stever said...

There is plenty of reasons to use a trial to expose the sham but objective people know that already. Just win bigly next November, Republicans shouldn’t f it up. We can’t get rid of the Nadler, just neuter them

Beasts of England said...

’Remember- if the Senate gets this over quickly - the Democrats have promised to impeach Trump again.’

That’s an interesting point. Remember, the Dems haven’t included bribery or anything from Mueller in the current articles. They could star down that path the day after a Senate acquittal.

Drago said...

Left Bank of the Charles: "Could it be that Lindsey is helping organize the coup? Let’s say he gets 30 Republican Senators to boycott the trial out of “disdain”. Then the Democrats would have two-thirds of the Senators present to vote for
conviction."

LOL

Jesus, you are dumber than Inga and LLR-lefty Chuck.

Shouting Thomas said...

I reluctantly agree with Graham.

The potential for violence and revenge from going after these foreign bribery scams probably is cost prohibitive.

Appears to me both parties are in on the scams.

Let’s get on to the 2020 election. I think Trump will win and the GOP has a shot at taking back the House.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PhilD said...

Graham to the democrats during the Kavenaugh confirmation;
"Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham,"

His attitude re the impeachment circus seems to be in line with that so I see no need to doubt his sincerity here.

Personally, from the outside looking in (since I'm not an American), I wish for an extended trial were the democrats are confronted with every lie they made. The Left very much needs having its nose pushed into its own vomit.

Michael K said...

I see two reasons to agree with Graham.

One, the public is tired of the show. Get on with business.

Two, RBG is going to die any day. Don't allow the Dims to raise the issue of a president under impeachment should not appoint a USSC justice.

Get on with it.

n.n said...

The reason that we as a country need to get this impeachment theater over ASAP is

OK. Also, while the 12 trimester hunts and trials will end, the investigation will continue to plunge Water Closet and clear the deep muck.

Francisco D said...

Could it be that Lindsey is helping organize the coup? Let’s say he gets 30 Republican Senators to boycott the trial out of “disdain”. Then the Democrats would have two-thirds of the Senators present to vote for conviction.

That is the type of plot twist one finds in a mediocre spy/mystery novel.

Or is it wishful thinking?

MikeR said...

I hear both sides, but I see the point of just brushing this off. Those don't sound like crimes, so - acquit. Sod off, swampy.

Browndog said...

So, nobody wants the charges against the President adjudicated, and the factual record corrected?

It just opens up more of the same from these assholes in the House.

donald said...

Great point Pacwest. My opinion of Trump has changed completely and he EARNED it.

As for shitheads who complain about deficits and whatever, all of their hero’s TALKED about it my entire life and exactly zero ever did anything about it, so whatever “conservatives”. I think of this as our country is a big ole aircraft carrier. We need to turn it around, but they and it can’t turn on a dime. This guy is the best possible vehicle for beginning that turn. If any of these assholes are serious (And they’re not), let him pursue his interests (Immigration, trade, draining the swamp etc) and when you get there pursue your interests.

Marc said...

Surely the House majority can impeach as often as it likes over its political charges: this isn't a criminal process governed by the Fifth Amendment's 'double jeopardy' clause, or is it?

eddie willers said...

I'm with Graham. I hear all the time that impeachment is a political process. That a President can be impeached on any charges whatsoever if voted out of the House.

Well....that has never been challenged. The Constitution says, Treason, Bribery, and other High crimes and [High] misdemeanours. All the previous impeachment efforts actually HAD high crimes.

I think Justice Roberts (or on whoever the job falls) should tell the House that since their articles do not include Treason, Bribery etc. they have failed in their Constitutional duties and send it back to the House (without prejudice to placate the Democrats) and rework if they wish.

Make Impeachment be what the Constitution says it must be.

And then let Barr and Durham get our pound of flesh.

chuck said...

>>... all of their hero’s TALKED about it my entire life and exactly zero ever did anything about it. <<

Carter was actually one of the best as regard deficits. Strange, but true.

Hagar said...

This is different from the previous impeachments.
There was no doubt that Andrew Johnson had violated the "Tenure of Office Act, then in force, nor that Bill Clinton had committed perjury in court; that was settled and done with beforehand. Likewise, for Nixon, though he short-cut the process, people had been prosecuted and sent to jail already.
IOW, guilt of the underlying misconduct had been established and accepted, and the only question before the Senate was if the misconduct amounted to "high crimes or misdemeanors."

In the case of Trump's indictment, guilt has by no means been established and accepted; certainly not in court. It has only been a straight partisan party exercise in the House, and even so, does not seem to rest on anything tangible.

It does seem to me that the Senate would be entirely justified in rejecting this as entirely frivolous and beneath its dignity to consider.

iowan2 said...

Remember- if the Senate gets this over quickly - the Democrats have promised to impeach Trump again. They have a big bag o Schitt-lies they can use.

Dems want to, but they stepped on their own dick, again. This gambit had a whistle blower complaint comming through the Intelligence Community. Very clumsy. Lt Cl Vindmin via a CIA analyst, got stymied by the CIA counsel, who refused because the wrong doing never touched the CIA. Schiff said take it to the IC IG. When the same thing happened, Schiff leaked the idea of the IC, lead by the NEW DNI was withholding a WB complaint. That got the complaint sprung loose, but the facts remain the same. Nothing touched the Intelligence Community. Important to understand, ONLY WB complaints originating from the IC are REQUIRED to inform the respective committees in the House and Senate. To launch another faux outrage impeachment, how to generate the false narrative?

I'm betting Barr has sent a letter of explanation of proper jurisdiction and handling of WB complaints to ALL the IG's letting them know, proper procedures will be followed or the Atty General will be calling out their incompetence.

The FBI is now a laughing stock, Wray cant be so stupid as to allow his agency to be the conduit.The intelligence community is also on notice.

Where does the next phony narrative originate from?

Yancey Ward said...

I don't think the danger is that the Democrats will just impeach again next year after a peremptory dismissal in the Senate- they do appear to have recognized that the impeachment effort is hurting them badly- this is why they have bailed out to these two weak articles, and might not even get those through the entire House without an actual whipping of the votes.

The danger, minor in my opinion, is that they will try to use the Senate's dismissal as political fodder. This is what CNN was doing all afternoon, yesterday, when Graham first made the comment about having already decided how he would vote- CNN played it up all afternoon as Graham being a partisan who shouldn't be allowed to cast a vote. This won't fly because, as I mentioned above, everybody has already made up their minds in the Senate, and everyone knows this.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

If the Senate does not hold an extended trial, but dismisses the articles out of hand, Margaret Brennan and the entire MSM will hold that that is doing the president's bidding because he's "afraid of the truth". For the liberal media, if black being black is outside the narrative, it generally becomes white.

Beasts of England said...

I mentioned that scenario a few weeks ago, Browndog, and earlier on this thread, re: the Mueller Report.

Jim said...

Both houses of Congress will do anything to protect what has become a culture of corruption. both Dems and Rep are happy to have their snouts in the trough, and see no problem with the agencies doing the same. Trump has shined a light on the rats, and they are all running about trying to cover themselves.
It's time to burn the whole MF thing down. It is rotten at its core. fuck the lot of them.
They are happy to destroy everything, including the Constitution and the Republic, so they can continue to feed themselves on our money. the phrase 'beware the wrath of patient men(and women)" comes to mind. this won't end well for anyone.

iowan2 said...

I really thought Schiff had/has another shocking Trump crime waiting the hit the fan. But Barr shut down the IC pathway to get it into the public sphere. I saw a news brief, the White House has drastically limited the number of people allowed on POTUS phone calls. So Schiff's moles may be known, and isolated now.

MayBee said...

My two favorite "legal" principles that came out of the house process:

1- Hearsay is better evidence than direct evidence
2- The House has the sole responsibility for investigating impeachment, therefore the courts have no say in whether someone can be compelled to answer a subpoena

Hagar said...

Off topic?
The "IG Report" found no political bias in the proceedings investigated. This seems to be because no one used the terms "Republican" or "Democrat" with the initial letters capitalized. That is Dickensian lawyerly pettifoggery beyond all reason.
There has been a lot of this twisting of the English language going on.

Michael K said...


In the case of Trump's indictment, guilt has by no means been established and accepted; certainly not in court. It has only been a straight partisan party exercise in the House, and even so, does not seem to rest on anything tangible.

It does seem to me that the Senate would be entirely justified in rejecting this as entirely frivolous and beneath its dignity to consider.


Agreed and I agree with Graham. Trump should now declassify all the stuff related. Wray has been holding out . Time to let it all out.

Howard said...

Here's hoping for a giant long drawn out clusterfuck. Unfortunately, it's not going to be able to become a reality.

Bay Area Guy said...

I vote for quick dismissal, and get on with the business of governing the US and having a semi-normal Presidential campaign.

It's not a hard vote, though. I could be persuaded to have a full blown trial and factual record.

traditionalguy said...

The Senate is not jurors. They all are all insider witnesses to the Swamp People’s corruption games. And witnesses like that are who should be jurors. But courts never get to use a panel of all insiders, so they opt for using all outsiders to make it seem fair.

Hagar said...

Notable among the 19 senators who voted to acquit were seven “Republican Recusants” who defied their party to save the impeached president. “I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution,” concluded recusant senator James Grimes of Iowa, “for the sake of getting rid of an Unacceptable President.”

Iman said...

I agree, declassify it all. It's the only way to be sure the scum are exposed for what they are.

Hagar said...

By no means a general thing, but there is/has always been trend for Republicans and their forebears to consider a compromise to be a closed deal and wish to go on to other things, while Democrats and their forebears look at a compromise as only a jack of the ratchet, or a milestone on the way to their final goal, and keep on pushing.
Or Republicans think of politics as governing and Democrats think they are on a mission from God.

Michael K said...

Howard said...
Here's hoping for a giant long drawn out clusterfuck. Unfortunately, it's not going to be able to become a reality.


Howard wants to destroy the Democrat Party,. Thank you Howard, but I think they are doing well anyway.

Bob Boyd said...

Something to consider. The movement in the polls in swing states against the impeachment was movement among swing voters. They don't think about this like Trump supporters do. It's possible they were turned off by a divisive ugly process, not by the specifics of the attacks on Trump himself, who they don't actually like or empathize with. They may not even grok the details Trump supporters are so outraged by.
Dems were the authors of the spectacle and got the blame. In a drawn out Senate trial, the shoe would be on the other foot.

Roy Lofquist said...

Since when do the jurors get to pick the witnesses?

Graham: "You need 51 votes to get a witness approved." Why is that? Because the Senate made a rule, as authorized by the Constitution. The question then becomes: can the Senate make a rule that is unconstitutional?

Amendment the sixth: "...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."

How do you suppose that John Roberts, Chief Justice of SCOTUS and presiding authority, would rule?

FullMoon said...

So obvious.

The Right: Whole thing is bullshit, it ends here.

The Left: Trump guilty, the republicans are covering up for him.

And, the left still has the loudest voice.

narciso said...

as chuck ross pointed out, the bureau didn't notify the crossfire hurricane team, that steele had worked for deripaska, that's kind of a big omission,

Char Char Binks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

What FullMoon wrote.

Qwinn said...

This began when Trump wanted the Biden's corruption exposed.

If this matter ends without that happening, then the Left has won.

Hold the trial, convict the Bidens.

narciso said...

graham of course, is party to the Ukraine kerfluffle, and his state is nearly being bought out by Qatar, so of course he's not going to investigate more than necessary,


https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/14/ustr-releases-summary-fact-sheet-outlining-u-s-china-phase-one-agreement/

Char Char Binks said...

Is Brennan retarded? She doesn't know what "taking marching orders" means. Seriously, I'm not familiar with her. Has she ever been deemed mentally unfit by a doctor, or any authority?

narciso said...

no she's just reading the script, she's nowhere near the worst,

Bob said...

Browndog said, "So, nobody wants the charges against the President adjudicated, and the factual record corrected?"

I really think the "factual record" is really impossible to know conclusively. And very ew minds are likely to change with additional "facts."

Browndog also said, "It just opens up more of the same from these assholes in the House."

It doesn't matter. The process has not helped the Democrats politically, so more of the same probably hurts them more and more.

Browndog said...

It doesn't matter. The process has not helped the Democrats politically, so more of the same probably hurts them more and more.

I'll cede that point.

Bob said...

Hagar said, "Or Republicans think of politics as governing and Democrats think they are on a mission from God."

I don't think anyone has a monopoly on claiming God as their reason for their actions.

Equipment Maintenance said...

Republicans should think long and hard about one thing; what type of trial would cause the most pain and anguish to the left. Then do that.

walter said...

FWIW, Byron York:
The get-it-over-with impeachment

Byron York
‏Verified account @ByronYork
7h7 hours ago

Boring: That's what many Republicans would like to see. And it is a reason some Democrats are arguing the Senate trial must include new witnesses, new testimony.

rehajm said...

and might not even get those through the entire House without an actual whipping of the votes

...and they might not want to get them through. Hell we might see a simulated but kit actual vote or they might vote and not record or they might all vote present.

They lose the football when they impeach, at least for a time. They need the football.

rehajm said...

Republicans are good at fumbling the football, but still...

narciso said...

this will probably be carwash 2


https://babalublog.com/2019/12/15/brazil-expecting-huge-losses-from-the-cuban-dictatorships-default-on-561-million-in-remaining-loans/

narciso said...

and he's just enough of a mark to go for it,


https://www.mediaite.com/news/group-of-dems-reportedly-pushing-for-justin-amash-to-be-an-impeachment-manager-for-senate-trial/

cubanbob said...

Jack Wayne and Yancey nailed it. Jack is right about testing the War Powers Act and Yancey is correct that Graham can hold an inquisition of the Democrats in the Senate.

dreams said...

Well, this is required reading for some perspective regarding Trump's impreachment trial...

"Secret — and Fraudulent — Allegations of Nixon’s Personal Wrongdoing

What the special prosecutors actually did to Richard Nixon is quite astonishing: they wrongfully assured both grand jurors and HJC staff that Nixon had personally approved the payment of “hush money” to Howard Hunt. Admittedly, there was circumstantial evidence to this effect. Nixon had first learned of Hunt’s blackmail demands from Dean on the morning of March 21, 1973, and a payment to Hunt’s lawyer had been made that very evening. Yet prosecutors were never able to prove the necessary chain of events to make the case that this was done at Nixon’s personal behest.

That didn’t stop them, however. They simply misrepresented the facts to cover their lack of direct evidence. This was fully and finally proven just last year. In response to my petition, Chief District Court Judge Beryl Howell unsealed the “Road Map,” which shows conclusively that WSPF prosecutors had no factual basis for their claim of Nixon’s personal approval for the “hush money” payment to Hunt.

WSPF prosecutors’ secret misrepresentations in the “Road Map” have striking parallels to equally critical misrepresentations made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court by the Obama Department of Justice, enabling them to institute surveillance of the Trump campaign. In both cases, prosecutors gave incomplete and misleading information, in secret, suggesting criminal acts by the president."

https://spectator.org/nixons-resignation-reconsidered/?fbclid=IwAR2UJmdpiLUzkvclnMWjO9okUep1hDFbOR54xKGdH-5zTmjrpUt5bOC1Y18

FullMoon said...

The best thing that could happen politically is for some of the publicly well known criminals actually being charged with crimes. Starting with the most well known, Comey and including Schiff.Also, Feinstien and other Dem senators who leaked classified info..

That would be impossible to bury, and would make an impression on the general low information voter.

Michael K said...

WSPF prosecutors’ secret misrepresentations in the “Road Map” have striking parallels to equally critical misrepresentations made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court by the Obama Department of Justice,

I have thought for years that Watergate was a coup d 'etat

I have also had suspicions for years that the breakin was sponsored by John Dean whose wife was a former "escort" in DC.

The FBI was behind that one, too.

narciso said...

Well my friend was the one that reversed the conviction of an ancillary figure, the city manager of san diego on appeal

narciso said...

My friend clarice, the prosecutor involved later became avp at united technologies.

Will J. Richardson said...

I would like to see a trial in the Senate limited to testimony and written evidence admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. What I heard from the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees was mostly hearsay, speculation, and opinion. How much of a case does the Democrat controlled House have left if they cannot offer evidence inadmissible under the Federal Rules of evidence?

narciso said...

And bailey and riekan were connected to jacob nesline a mobster who stretched back to havana and until the elian rendition

Chuck said...

Blogger Qwinn said...
This began when Trump wanted the Biden's corruption exposed.
...


I’ve never understood this. What is stopping a real, serious investigation of “the Bidens”? If there was something to investigate, why not leave it to the Attorney General, the DoJ, the Director of the FBI, U.S. law enforcement, international law enforcement, etc.? If you are the President, ask for that investigation from the people whose job it is to do those investigations. If the claim is that the entire Justice Department and all of the FBI (under leadership appointed by Trump) are all part of a deep state conspiracy to protect the Bidens, I’m sorry but that’s a conversation-ender. Like Obama’s birth certificate.

What is the sum total of the Trump Administration’s international corruption-fighting efforts? In Ukraine, what is the Trump Administration’s anti-corruption program? Right now, it looks like Rudy Giuliani, alone. Unpaid by Justice, with no official powers or credentials, and most recently even without a Russian language interpreter. Not even paid by Trump. All while he is under investigation himself, with two of his associates under indictment in federal custody.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Chuck - The hack-D corporate MSM already acquitted the Bidens of any wrong doing.

narciso said...

Nixon made asimilar mistake to the shah afrew years later, he alienated the mil8tary with his approach to china hence the moorer spy ring and he had no support aming the ivy league grandees at the company

narciso said...

As we discovered romney is connected to this matter through schrage as well as cofer black

daskol said...

If there was something to investigate, why not leave it to the Attorney General, the DoJ, the Director of the FBI, U.S. law enforcement, international law enforcement, etc.?

This reminds me of the long-running line on Instapundit: at what point does sending your kids to publics schools amount to child abuse?

At what point does entrusting such matters to be effectively "internally investigated" by a group of people who've shown themselves at best, according to their own IG, incompetent to the extreme, amount to burying one's head in the sand? Anyway, the appeal to Ukraine was an appeal to their leadership to prompt their own law enforcement apparatus to continue acting to investigate excessive cooperation with Democrat operatives during the lead-up to the 2016 election, and to continue with the Burisma related investigation. That's what Trump is being impeached for: an appeal for cooperative multi jurisdictional investigation of wrongdoing.

daskol said...

Impeachment by this Congress amounts to something like a swamp-draining campaign badge or a Purple Heart. It is truly a badge of honor to have this group of miscreants as your devoted enemy. Anyone still respecting our institutions in their current form is either insufficiently cynical or plain stupid. The people who pretend to respect them, those practioners of civility bullshit and concern trolling for the lack of respect for these institutions, are neither stupid nor sincere. They're the most cynical.

daskol said...

I notice, in the interest of fairness to our major media organs, that the whole "exoneration" angle on the IG report died quickly. They're still targeting the LIVs in the pure clickbait press, but respectable media dropped it quickly. That's slightly encouraging.

daskol said...

Stern sidekick Robin Quivers went on a rant about how Trump continues to advance his conspiracies regarding the origins of the Russia investigation despite an IG report that showed nothing wrong but a few small mistakes, and that in fact the FBI would have been derelict in its duty if it didn't take action it took. That's why we can't make progress, she bemoans: there's no such thing as facts anymore. I liked it better when she was literally phoning it in, from her home studio, and her participation in the show was diminished. She's got a great laugh, but she's incredibly shallow.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Daskol - dropping "exoneration" it is not the same as apologizing and correcting. which is what any honorable journalist would do. But we don't have an honest press. We have d-party hacks pimping narratives.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Truly, who fucking cares?

Does a single person in the press really believe there’s a whole secret mass of white supremacists standing in the shadows (or out in the open) ready to lynch people? Talk about a conspiracy theory.

Fuck off!

Hagar said...

An impeachment of a government official is a political event; not a judicial trial.

exhelodrvr1 said...

He has a point, but the best way for the truth about Brennan, Comey, et al to come out is through the impeachment process.

Hagar said...

The media anchors and correspondents provide what the owners of the said media want and are paying for. Otherwise they would be employed elsewhere or not at all.

Bob Smith said...

IMO. The real reason hardly anybody in the Senate want to bring in the Bidens? Using a family member to launder bribes is a way of life in the public sector.

Beasts of England said...

Chuck is seriously gaslighting for the Bidens at 2:44!! 😂

Aunty Trump said...

I see that all of the Democrats have been grilled on whether they are open minded in this.... Ha ha ha, JK LOL.

Chuck said...

daskol said...
If there was something to investigate, why not leave it to the Attorney General, the DoJ, the Director of the FBI, U.S. law enforcement, international law enforcement, etc.?

This reminds me of the long-running line on Instapundit: at what point does sending your kids to publics schools amount to child abuse?

At what point does entrusting such matters to be effectively "internally investigated" by a group of people who've shown themselves at best, according to their own IG, incompetent to the extreme, amount to burying one's head in the sand? Anyway, the appeal to Ukraine was an appeal to their leadership to prompt their own law enforcement apparatus to continue acting to investigate excessive cooperation with Democrat operatives during the lead-up to the 2016 election, and to continue with the Burisma related investigation. That's what Trump is being impeached for: an appeal for cooperative multi jurisdictional investigation of wrongdoing.


So where does that important investigation stand? Why outsource it to Ukraine? If there were Americans involved in foreign corruption, surely the DoJ needs to investigate it, right? The same DoJ led by Bill Barr.

All that Trump ever did, was to ask President Zelensky to announce an investigation on a CNN news program. (And withhold aid until he did it.) That's it. That's the testimony under oath from Trump's own ambassador to the European Union.

Beasts of England said...

’All that Trump ever did, was to ask President Zelensky to announce an investigation on a CNN news program. (And withhold aid until he did it.) That's it.’

You’re a funny guy, Chuckles.

narciso said...

you cross reference almost all the witnesses, kent, vindman, jareckas (who would be if she wasn't on the Puerto rican oversight board) taylor et al, and they were all part of the country team skim, taylor particularly has a history of at least being a spectator to similar schemes in Afghanistan and Iraq, so was McKinley a little down the line,

now comey ran interference for hsbc (as the recent indictments with the swiss subsidiary proved) mueller accepted honoraria from banamex, a year before they settled, of course Mueller's firm defended deutsche bank, in a complicated transaction with Barclay bank and Qatari investors, like the ones that have been busy in lindsays home state,

Birkel said...

Who has that quote from the racist fopdoodle about only wanting to smear Trump?
And has no interest in fairness?
Or truth?

I know Xis whole point is being a dick and lying and being a dick.
Still, that quote is always funny.

dreams said...

And there is this...

"So sorry, dear senators, you don’t get to punt on this one. We want justice.

We want President Trump to have every last damn witness he wants. I would offer, for starters, this list: Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Eric Ciaramella, Adam Schiff, Glenn Simpson, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Hillary Clinton, and while we’re at it, all the collaborators in the media like Jim Scuitto, Natasha Bertrand, Ken Dilanian . . . hell, everyone at CNN and a lot of people at MSNBC.

I could think of dozens more names, but I think you all get the point here: there must be a real trial, with people under oath, on national television, so that the American people can understand what has happened for the last three years. For the sake of the Republic, we cannot just simply sweep this under the rug and move on."

https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/14/the-senate-needs-to-stop-sniveling/

cubanbob said...


So where does that important investigation stand? Why outsource it to Ukraine? If there were Americans involved in foreign corruption, surely the DoJ needs to investigate it, right? The same DoJ led by Bill Barr."

Chuck what makes you think Barr isn't doing that as we speak?

Giovan Pietro Bellori said...

Cuck has zero influence. Absolutely none. Shitheads like him ran the party for years, and this is the result—impotent shrieking from a bow-tied loser. Live with it, Cuck.

traditionalguy said...

As much as a Trial in the Senate would be interesting, I have to side with Graham. Why put the Presidency into jeopardy. His team can always attack the enemy with indictments of them byDurham at a time of its chosing.

Best to go by Nimitz order to Fletcher and Spruance on June 4, 1942: " You will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you shall interpret to mean the avoidance of exposure of attack by superior enemy forces without good prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy."

Aunty Trump said...

I don’t think that the majority of the Democrats even believe the shit they are saying, and rubbing their noses in the truth won’t get them to change their tune. They think that if they say it enough, enough people will either go along with the game and join in, if they appear to be winning, and some, I will call them the by-catch, will actually believe them.

Article one, all you have to do is point out that Trump read the openly available stuff in the press about the DNC working with Ukrainian intelligence with backing of the Obama Administration to undermine his candidacy. At that point, his state of mind is that the investigation is in the national interest.

This is like people said that W shouldn’t have tried to punish Saddam for trying to kill his father, when in fact, an assassination attempt on a former POTUS is almost an act of war against the US, and the personal aspects of it have nothing to do with it whether it is in the national interest or not.

Anyway, my point is that a trial isn’t going to change any minds, no matter how compelling the case. Look at Kavanaugh. Overwhelming evidence that CBF was confabulating had zero impact. They still pretend to believe it because pretending to believe it has power.

Curious George said...

"All that Trump ever did, was to ask President Zelensky to announce an investigation on a CNN news program. (And withhold aid until he did it.) That's it. That's the testimony under oath from Trump's own ambassador to the European Union."

No Cuck, his testimony was that he presumed that. He was never told that by anyone. No one.

You make up what other people say and deny what you say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HaI0fVyFYg

Dave Begley said...

Just saw "Richard Jewell." Good movie.

Trump doesn't need an acquittal; he needs vindication. Just like Jewell got his vindication with big money libel settlements. He got his reputation back. Especially when the real killer confessed.

The Senate would not be doing its job with a short trial. The Presidency needs to be vindicated and the coup plotters need to suffer and be punished.

How in the world can the anonymous Biden hack, Eric the C, start the impeachment of the President of the United States based upon his OPINION of a phone call that he never even heard?

I still think Trump wins in the House. Nancy and the Dems don't want a trial as that would vindicate Trump and only insure his win in 2020.

rehajm said...

Is simpler than all this: Miss Lindsey has no cakewalk against his opponent this cycle. He’ll do whatever he believes will keep him in office. A wet finger in the wind tells him what to do.

A wet finger...

Aunty Trump said...

Chuck is pretending to believe stuff too. Either that or he is carefully curating his news consumption to avoid contracting any contamination of facts that might impinge on the purity of his views.

Do you think a trial where Trump is allowed to make his case would change the minds of people like this no matter how compelling the case?

FullMoon said...

full Comey interview:

narciso said...

there are so many interesting angles in this story, that aren't even considered, not unlike the plame spectacle, a baker's dozen of years ago,

Szoszolo said...

"Senator Graham, you said that Donald Trump was a "kook" and "unfit for office" and a lot more. You were right then. What happened?"

He was speaking of candidate Trump. Who knew then how Trump would govern if he won?

What Graham says now is about President Trump, who has a three-year track record of doing a lot of things Graham likes and a few that he doesn’t – and he’s been open about all of them. If he agrees with Trump, it’s “He’s a toady!” If he disagrees, then it’s “Why’d it take you so long?” You can’t win against TDS.

Aunty Trump said...

The Ukrainian that Sondman claimed he said that to says he never met with Sondman except in passing after some kind of event and he was never asked to announce any investigation.

I would link it, but you know what? I have linked plenty of stuff imagining that Chuck would read them and get it, but he has proven himself dishonest and not worth the effort.

That Bulwark article on Charlottesville that everybody has shredded from Althouse to Scott Adams to plenty of commenters here? Chuck does his best imitation of Baghdad Bob. “There are no American tanks in Baghdad!”

narciso said...

many of the same players reappear in different roles, comey fitz mueller wray et al, with goldsmith, serving a similar role to eisenberg,

BUMBLE BEE said...

I think Yancy's plan has a great deal of merit.Those of you who want to get this over are sissy butch Rinos. This is Khe Sahn for the republic. If this thing is unresolved it will rot and fester and the coup will have succeded. Your children need to see resolution to develop the perspective, cause the left is gonna try it again as soon as the boomers pass. We've got a fighter in the White House and we need to honor that. You quitters an go join the circle jerk with Mittens.

narciso said...

but as with gowdy whose part in the Benghazi inquiry was compromised by his part in the gang of eight, and authorizing the footprint that funded the Libyan rebels, including the mastermind who likely gave the order to target the raid, he was apprehended by general hafter's men a year and a half ago,

Browndog said...

Blogger Dave Begley said...

Just saw "Richard Jewell." Good movie.

Trump doesn't need an acquittal; he needs vindication.


Agree whole heartedly.

walter said...

FullMoon said...
full Comey interview
--
Wherein Comey plays the victim card while he engages in wordplay.

Drago said...

Skylark: "I have linked plenty of stuff imagining that Chuck would read them and get it, but he has proven himself dishonest and not worth the effort."

LLR-lefty Chuck has a long history of far left mendacious and dishonest posting.

That along with his long history of racist comments along with vicious attacks on women and children are all part of why he has been banned on multiple occasions.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Comey is a vile.

Browndog said...

You don't need to call every Tom, Dick, and Harry to testify. You call the same witnesses Sciff used, and impeach their testimony.

All those questions the republicans asked and Schiff told them not to answer?

Make them answer.

Aunty Trump said...

OK, this tweet from five minutes ago may have been ill-advised.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1206335971974959107

I mean, he is right, but he’s not an anonymous web commenter playing for laughs. Still Nancy has been ridiculous in this whole charade.

narciso said...

I point out, the inconvenient facts that impeach the whole camarilla some of whose members I referred to, concentric circles, the country team the lawfare team,

Drago said...

Szoszolo: "He was speaking of candidate Trump. Who knew then how Trump would govern if he won?"

LLR-lefty Chuck pulls that little trick quite often whereby he takes a commentator or politician who initially opposed Trump as a candidate but has come around to supporting Trump and LLR-lefty Chuck will link to something from 2015 or 2016 that commentator wrote or said and ignore everything that has happened since.

LLR-lefty Chuck thinks this is a "very clever" ploy because he is just another in a long line of deluded leftists who thinks these politically ancient tactics are effective.

Instead, they actually harm his case and everyone laughs at him.

Aunty Trump said...

If Pelosi were a serious person, she would have removed Schiff for his non stop lying. His hearing, and this whole impeachment, for that matter, reminds me of “The Play That Went Wrong.” Both require a really puerile sense of humor to enjoy wholeheartedly.

Nichevo said...

Too many comments to read before posting, but President Trump may be using the threat of a long, drawn-out Senate trial to decrease the House's appetite for voting for impeachment.

Perhaps the threat of enough rocks getting turned over to really upset the apple cart, if AA will forgive me for mixing metaphors, will justify Pelosi's not having the Democratic caucus whipped.

Sooner or later someone is going to have to tell AOC and the squad to STFU. Now might be a good time. Seeing how the loony left has been discredited electorally by the Labour debacle in the UK. As Chirac said so long ago, somebody might have a great opportunity to shut up.

I myself favor a full trial with leaving nothing left unsaid. If we lose a few hundred Congresscritters and a few thousand bureaucrats, remind me what the downside is?

narciso said...

responding to the chuckster, is much like speaking to the dead parrot in the python sketch, that's why I illustrate instead of agitate,

daskol said...

Publicly announcing an investigation perhaps indicates someone making a public commitment to an investigation, making it somewhat embarrassing and difficult to quietly kill it.

I don’t know if Trump aims to blow the lid off of systemic corruption in which US aid money is laundered in various ways so that it comes back to the people with the power to push for it, from relatively low-rent schemes like Hunter Biden’s no-show job to much higher value schemes the murky details of which you can discern in some of the OSINT narciso links and most everybody else tends to ignore. I doubt it because this corruption is so widespread and bipartisan that there is almost nobody who can be counted on to fully investigate let alone punish anyone involved. I do think the threat of exposing it, drip by drip, is clearly a tool Trump is using to get otherwise unreliable GOPe types to fall in line. However that plays out, for those interested in the undernews, anyway, it is impossible to ever think of the massive amounts of US aid money as anything but a means for the enrichment of favored members of the administrative state. The more corrupt and shadowy the country receiving the aid the better, apparently. Trump may not drain the swamp, but more and more it’s impossible to deny the swampiness and muck we’re all covered in.

Third Coast said...

I have it on good authority that John Durham told the President:
"You want a trial Mr. President, I'll give you lots of trials."

Nichevo said...

The Clinton impeachment continues to embarrass.

12/15/19, 9:06 AM


Look, wild chicken, an executive had a woman brought to his hotel at gunpoint and attempted to rape her. After she escaped, he attempted to defraud her in the courts by concealing his long time pattern of sexual abuse. Monica Lewinsky was just the tip of that particular iceberg.

That's what people are being sorry they impeached him for. Really? Who should be sorry is the Democrats not voting to convict, or visiting BJ Clinton and telling him to go.

daskol said...

I think that threat—of exposing US aid money laundering—is effective also on many Dems. That Pelosi dentures tweet is merely a reminder that Trump will say anything if it’s directionally accurate, for example breaking open scandal that would consume even some of his current allies.

Aunty Trump said...

Here’s my review of “The Play That Went Wrong”: If you had to look up ‘puerile’ you might enjoy it.

narciso said...

well this is a kindred spirit for chuck


https://twitter.com/jordanlperkins/status/1206298305816354819

Williamson and Gerson are on similar notes,

David Begley said...

Regarding the Horowitz Report, I heard on CNN someone say the following (my paraphrase), “The people in the Midwest should not worry their pretty little heads about this. Focus on the NFL games.”

Fuck you. Fuck the NFL. That comment perfectly reflects the Dems, Fake News attitude towards us plebes: bread, circuses and now dope.

Can Trump's FBI start spying on Bernie's campaign? I have my suspicions about Simone Sanders, Creighton alum and top Bernie campaign aide. I've been told that she's visited both Russia and China. Let's get a FISA warrant or NSL on Simone. The FBI should start listening to her phone calls and reading her emails.

How about that Dems? You with me?

Browndog said...

Graham may be the (temporary) Chairman of the Judiciary Committee but Grassley's going to run this impeachment...according to the wishes of McConnell.

narciso said...

there's your problem, no one watches cnn, really, it's on my pluto network between the bond channel, and the syfy excerpts channel,

narciso said...

Grassley is interesting because he sniffed out some of the counterpart flags that nunes had discovered, but little was done with it,

n.n said...

The Clinton impeachment continues to embarrass.

Democrats, Feminists, and like-minded. Republicans, for their part, overestimated support for women and girls. Apparently, #MeToo was not politically congruent in that interim.

narciso said...

it only applied from 1991-1994, then again after 2017,

Leora said...

A quick acquittal on the record combined with an oversight investigation into the FISA abuse and intelligence community targeting of political campaigns seems to me to be the way to go. I'd hold off until Durham makes his report in the spring though.

Browndog said...

One thing is certain in the Impeachment trial:

No U.S. Senators will be harmed; current or former.

Birkel said...

Who has that racist fopdoodle comment about wanting to smear President Trump? Please

Aunty Trump said...

It’s a Fen’s Law impeachment. What’s the point of a trial? It’s like one of those threads of back and forth where everybody stops reading but the ones involved.

Two events have happened this week that will be of. interest to historians for a long time, the Horowitz Report and the Afghanistan Papers. This “impeachment” is just cargo cult politics. Surely if they dress up like American soldiers and march around the beach, supplies will drop from the heavens in boxes on parachutes! Surely if we all put on an impeachment show, it will carry the gravity of an actual impeachment even without wrongdoing!

narciso said...

they need a chiropractor to untangle themselves from this pretzel exercise,

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-afghanistan-pullout-plans-threatened-by-the-tweet-of-damocles?ref=home

of course Eisenhower, held nukes as a bargaining point,

walter said...

Chuck said... I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him.
But you can buy some reprieve with a donated big ass bottle of gin.

Browndog said...

I'd hold off until Durham makes his report in the spring though.

Held off this entire Presidency waiting on Mueller and Horowitz.

No thank-you.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 292   Newer› Newest»