Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Democrats are going to try to “Kavanaugh” the Impeachment Trial with new accusations

Democrats are going to try to “Kavanaugh” the Impeachment Trial with new accusations

I don’t think Mitch McConnell is going to let that happen, as much as Trump’s base may relish a free-for-all in which Adam Schiff and others are called to testify.

The most dangerous place on earth, Bob Dole wisely observed, is between Chuck Schumer and the TV cameras.

Not surprisingly, while Mitch McConnell usually gets his way, Schumer gets the headlines and TV coverage.

Schumer did that again today with his demand for a “fair” trial, meaning to Schumer that Democrats get to reopen the investigation of Trump during the trial, including calling witnesses who did not testify, and doing the job the House Democrats failed to do. A do-over.

That’s not usually the way trials work — the pleading of claims and discovery takes place before the trial. House Democrats chose not to do that for key witnesses they wanted — including John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney — because forcing them to testify in the House would have meant court litigation. Democrats were on a timetable driven by the 2020 election that did not allow for a court to decide the clash of branches, so they went with what they had.

Schumer and Senate Democrats know that what the House had is not enough to get 20 Republican Senators to vote against Trump — they may not even get one. So the trial takes on a different purpose — to seek evidence and to prolong impeachment investigations for the remainder of the election year based on “new evidence” discovered during the trial.

Byron York astutely observes that Senate Democrats are taking the same approach they took in trying to block Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination:

If Schumer gets what he wants, it seems hard to believe that will be the end of it. The request for more witnesses appears designed to lead not to closure but to reopening the case against Trump. In this way, if Democrats can introduce new testimony in the trial, they can say the new testimony has raised new questions that will require new investigation. And new investigation will require more new witnesses, which will surely lead to more new questions, which …

Call it the Brett Kavanaugh model of impeachment. During the Supreme Court justice’s confirmation process, a hearing had already been held, and Kavanaugh appeared on the way to joining the court. Then, up popped a new allegation, the Christine Blasey Ford story, and Democrats demanded the case be reopened, witnesses be interviewed, evidence be gathered, and time be taken for more investigation. Republicans acceded to those demands, and the Kavanaugh confirmation careened off course for a while before GOP lawmakers finally got it back on track….

The bottom line is, Republicans should not believe for one minute that the campaign to remove the president will rely only on the case Democrats have built in the House. Schumer and other party leaders will scramble for new information to throw at the president, and at Republicans, until it is over. The GOP, and the White House, need to be ready.

Senate Democrats proved themselves to be misleading and dishonest demagogues during the Kavanaugh hearings. Expect the same at a Senate impeachment trial.

One “rational” approach would be not to appease Schumer and others who are not interested in the least in fairness, but seek to “Kavanaugh” the impeachment trial, to keep tight control on the procedure and witnesses, and to treat the trial as a real trial. That is the approach reportedly favored by McConnell and many other Republican Senators.

Against that, however, is a Republican grassroots desire to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, members of the House Intelligence Committee staff who interacted with the purported “whistleblower,” and the “whistleblower” himself. In other words, to make the trial a discovery tool, but as to how impeachment was cooked up and as to the Democratic corruption at the heart of Trump’s concerns.

Turning the trial into a free-for-all is risky. But I bet it’s what a lot of readers want in their hearts. It may also be what Trump wants in his heart, but he has proven to be far more cautious a player than his persona or Twitter account would suggest.

I’m guessing, but not betting, that Mitch will prevail and Trump will go along, and we’ll have a tightly controlled short trial in which there are few surprises, and the foregone conclusion remains the conclusion. McConnell will keep the Republicans in line to overturn any ruling by Chief Justice Roberts that would allow expansion of the allegations. Schumer may get his four witnesses so that Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney stay on board, but that will be it.

But there will be theatrics along the way, and the space between Chuck Schumer and the TV cameras will be more dangerous than ever.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Treat the senate trial the same as the house impeachment rules if we must have a trial. Only allow R witness’s to be called. Vet them in private. Stop any question being answered.

Call the faux whistleblower after Schiff.

Democrats are taking the same approach they took in trying to block Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination…

So we’re talking hundreds of mental cases screaming all the way through any committee, screeching their rage, making bomb threats, hopping up and down with their incoherent fury. Yeah, I can see that. And that’s just the Senators.

    artichoke in reply to georgfelis. | December 17, 2019 at 12:17 am

    The difference is that that was a generalized “advise and consent”. One could argue that anything could be brought up.

    This is two specific articles of impeachment, and evidence has already been received, the Dems already built their case. There is no reason to allow a single witness since there is really no case.

      Edward in reply to artichoke. | December 17, 2019 at 6:43 am

      True there is no case, but that won’t stop the Socialist-Democrats from trying. Already the House Judiciary Committee staffers, more than likely with the approval of The Waddler and Pelousy, added Wire Fraud to the Impeachment Report and Articles without raising a word about inclusion, much less any discussion, or any vote in Committee session.

    Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | December 17, 2019 at 9:51 am

    Nah, there aren’t hundreds of senators.

“Schumer and other party leaders will scramble for new information …”

“Information” is a very generous way of describing it. “Obvious lies” would be more accurate, as in the case of Christine Blasey Fraud’s obvious lies against Justice Kavanaugh.

At an absolute minimum they HAVE to have the LEAKER testify.

Call him, put him under oath, and demand he explain himself. Enough with this bullshit of letting him hide behind lies about how he’s shielded from exposure just because he lies and claims he’s a whistleblower.

    Occasional Thinker in reply to Olinser. | December 17, 2019 at 5:51 am

    While I would like to see the Democrat operative that started this and who feeds at the taxpayer trough publicly crucified, the impeachment trial might not be the best venue. Let the Senate start an investigation into leaks from the NSC and call every one that was/is a member and grill them all. Let the “whistleblower” put themselves or commit perjury.

    clintack in reply to Olinser. | December 17, 2019 at 6:09 am

    God, why?

    What’s the point?

    Let’s say we call him, and Schiff’s aides, and prove that he was conspiring to produce headlines to spur on an investigation.

    So what?

    How does that help either the Senate or the American people reach the conclusion that President Trump did nothing wrong?

      If that were the strategy, the best option for McConnell would have been to reject the House Impeachment Articles in the first place. But he didn’t and so Trump will always be smeared as being an impeached president.

      So if that is going to be the path, let’s make use it as a means of drawing in all of the dirty players. Drag it out all year and beyond if necessary until all Americans understand the enormity of this conspiracy. Make it worth suffering through the impeachment.

      I am still not certain that Pelosi wants to go through with this and may still pull the plug before the floor vote. If not, it will be up to McConnell to find his spine and cram this thing down Schumer’s throat on the way to taking down the deep state. Be a man McConnell!

        the best option for McConnell would have been to reject the House Impeachment Articles in the first place
        Huh?! He hasn’t even received the articles yet, because they haven’t passed the House yet.

          Tom Servo in reply to GWB. | December 17, 2019 at 11:22 am

          Also, once the House passes it, it would be very improper for the Majority Leader to simply reject it – he’s not King of the Senate, after all. The Senate takes the stuff the House passes and deals with it. Although politically, I would enjoy a trial with a lot of these “witnesses” called in, Legally, I think McConnell is doing the proper thing.

I am of two thoughts,

– burn it, and be done with it

– BURN IT TO THE GROUND

Senators, attorneys, witnesses 1 at a time only. No gallery. No press. Only the CSPAN (?) camera(s). Any disruption like the Kavanaugh hearing gets promptly tazered and arrested.

“Schumer may get his four witnesses so that Susan Collins, Linda Murkowski, and Mitt Romney stay on board, but that will be it.”

Not even that.

McConnell should give him the same answer that Senator Geary got, “You can have my answer now, if you like. My offer is this: nothing.”

    artichoke in reply to fscarn. | December 17, 2019 at 12:15 am

    I wouldn’t count on Murkowski and Mitt especially to keep their word on such a thing. They’ll discover new evidence, reconsider, etc.

    No Dem. witnesses. Not a single one. Same rules as the House, in reverse. And maybe no R witnesses either, if there’s no danger of a bad vote. Just vote and be done.

Someone should plant a fake camera in front of Schumer, with lights and electronic noises, and ask his opinion on Trump, the Senate impeachment process, and whatnot. Let him preen in front of a fake camera — after all, he is promoting fake news.

grandstanding… demon-rats and their complicit media… nip it in the bud…
get on to the new investigation & 2020 victory for trump

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” -Carl Sandberg

The democrats have been pounding the table since 2016. They kicked the table over in Kavanaugh hearings.

If they get any TV time in a sham impeachment trial, they are going to nuke the table.

Do not, under any circumstances, give them any latitude or lend them any credibility in this hoax. The Senate should outright reject these sham Articles, and let the dems go crying to the msm cameras.

The first rule should be no witnesses who only have hearsay “evidence” to present. Other than the phony whistle blower, as that is the person who Schiff coached and used to help set this off.
Schiff should be put on the stand to pointedly ask if he or his office in any way met with the whistle blower prior to and during the time that the accusation was given in to the IG. He will either perjure himself, or have to admit his actions in setting this up.
Eric CIAramella needs to have his full background, CIA, Brennan plant, his work with Biden and Obama’s administration be placed into the record.
The article given as Obstruction of Congress should be thrown out, as it is a matter for the courts to decide if the subpoena issued were legal, official, and if Executive Privilege in this case would warrant those witnesses requested be compelled to appear. I am not sure that true subpoenas were issued, as some have stated that these were letters written by Schiff’s staff not officially drafted as subpoenas.
The Nadler show supposedly added charges over the weekend to those which were drafted, after the vote in his committee. Those should be tossed aside as there was no witnesses who testified in either the sham Schiff Show nor the Nadler kangaroo court hearings. That invalidates them.

    Edward in reply to oldgoat36. | December 17, 2019 at 6:54 am

    If you have Ciaramella (pretty much agreed upon He Who Shall Not Be Named) testifying, there’s no reason to call Schiff for Brains for actual testimony about Ciaramella’s complaint filing process and Intel Committee contacts. But there is a good reason not to call him – to avoid setting the precedent that either house of Congress can compel testimony of a member of the other house. If Ciaramella lies, all bets are off on who to call to impeach his testimony.

“Turning the trial into a free-for-all is risky.”

The risks include rioting in the streets and years of even greater polarization.

But the Democrats never think of consequences. They will pull out all the stops and when things go bad, they’ll just blame Trump.

We’re not at the point of civil war yet. But it’s getting closer.

Schumer is all for the rights of the minority party only when he is in the minority.

I want the Republicans to slam this thing shut as fast as possible. I’d like it to be over in one day.

Graham has invited Giuliani to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about what he’s found related to Ukraine, but after the impeachment trial. The impeachment trial is the wrong forum to do anything but end it.

This isn’t entertainment. It could be the end of the country if it isn’t resolved properly.

I disagree with Professor Jacobson. Call Biden, Schiff, and the fake “whistleblower” while not allowing any Democrat ANY witnesses. Period. If Romneycare & Co. whine about “fairness” and bolt to the Democrat side, so be it. It is what they will eventually do anyway, and it is no use to pretend otherwise.

Time to make the Vichy Republicans publicly chose a side: communism or freedom. No more kicking the can down the road so Mitt and his minions can preen for the TV cameras. Let them boldly wear the hammer-and-sickle for the world to see if that is what they choose. Let history clearly record the level of their evil. But no more lies, no more deceit, no more cover for commie traitors. No more helping them keep their dirty noses above water while the innocent suffer.

There’s always one correct answer to a Chuck Schumer request. Chuck you you dingbat!

“Schumer and other party leaders will scramble for new information to throw at the president…”

Agreed, and understand that it will really be “new allegations,” however baseless they may be, and the Democrats will argue that they are proven just like Schiff did, even if they plainly are not.

It’ like Rush says, the Republicans MUST stop playing defense for fear of being criticized by the MSM. Their fear is what invites these tactics and allows them to work. Block such tactics and push ahead as planned and get it done. It’s time to go after the big fish.

If anything, introduce testimony that will finally tie the Clinton/Obama crime syndicates into it. Snagging those two fish may lead us to even bigger fish. A lot of these players were members of the Bush crowd.

Let’s not call anybody and just put it to a vote. It can be over in less than an hour. Then we can get back to the people’s business.

I still don’t see the House sending the charges to the Senate. The whole cabal is so poor it is only good for cannon fodder and that is what the dems will use it for. The House will vote and for the next year they will use the “charges” to feed the media.

    Edward in reply to OldSarg. | December 17, 2019 at 7:00 am

    That would be the “smart” move at this point of painting themselves into a corner. I’m sure Pelousy would favor doing exactly that. But will that be sufficient “red meat” for the whacko base of the Socialist-Democrat Party? In Congress this is the Party of Cortez and friends and it seems that San Fran Nan barely hangs on to her Speaker’s gig.

    Milhouse in reply to OldSarg. | December 17, 2019 at 10:25 am

    The whole cabal is so poor

    On the contrary, the cabal is filthy rich. Perhaps you meant that their case is poor.

As we have seen time and again, when the Democrats/Left fail in their Trump attacks, they pivot to another accusation. Somehow this must stop and the public must see what is being done.
>
By having a very short trial in the Senate, the Democrats/Left will claim all sorts of impropriety concerning the trial and this issue will never go away.
>
By having an extended trial where all the accusations are laid to rest, where the Democrats/left are shown to be what they are, by embarrassing them beyond anything they could tolerate, perhaps, just perhaps, they will be too cowed to try this again. By having this trial and elucidating those illegal acts committed by the Democrats/Left and referring them for their own criminal trial, the Left/Democrats might just learn that their strategy is a failed one that carries with it a very real risk. Now is the time to politically destroy the Left/Democratic party for without doing this the deep state can never be defeated.

Prof. Jacobsen, isn’t there any method by which the Senate Judiciary committee or the Rules committee can send the impeachment back to the House for rewrite? After all, the “obstruction of Congress” claim is imperfect, since they have not attempted the ordinary remedy: enforce a subpoena via the federal court. Aren’t they already doing that vis-a-vis the Mueller report grand jury information? So send that article back into the House for additional work. We know the Pelosi gang wants to rush, but I think it would be fine to slow them down to get all the tees dotted etc., i.e., to get all of their {{{beeep}}} in one bag. Then impeachment being such a large undertaking, send back the “abuse of power” article, too, so that there can be one trial if they ever get the votes to send it back.

That plan depends on not very trustworthy senators, however, so maybe the President’s lawyers could make that a pre-trial motion, dismissal without prejudice, stating that the articles are imperfect.

This would have the added benefit of just possibly tying Hon. Senator Schumer’s brain in knots AND let the articles stew a little longer in the House. 🙂

Whatever we decide to do, it should be for maximum damage against the Dems. Everything else is secondary. This is war.

The most important thing is not to allow any bogus votes. No citing “Scottish law” or other malarkey. “Convict-Remove” or “Acquit-Do Not Remove” are the only two votes allowed. And note that abstentions will count as “Acquit-Do Not Remove”.

An additional problem is that Lindsey Graham has proven himself another Paul Ryan..there to impede investigations into Democrat crime, all the while talking the opposite.

Hunter Biden et al. should be indicted or subpoena’d to testify in a court of law. There’s no need to drag them into these impeachment proceedings.

Dispose of the accusations as prepared by the House Clowns. End the charade. No need for witnesses, if that’s what the Murder Turtle decides. I am content to let Barr and Durham to take down the criminals. Don’t try to overload serious business on top of an absurd charade.

US Constitution:
Article 1, Section 2: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Article 1, Section 7: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;…”

Gee, are these powers that are unique to the House related?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend