Image 01 Image 03

McConnell: ‘Do You Think Chuck Schumer is Impartial? So Let’s Quit the Charade’ on Impeachment

McConnell: ‘Do You Think Chuck Schumer is Impartial? So Let’s Quit the Charade’ on Impeachment

“This is a political exercise. All I’m asking of Schumer is that we treat Trump the same way we treated Clinton.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called out the Democrats’ weak excuse to withhold the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Fox & Friends this morning.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claims she’s withholding the articles because it doesn’t look like the Senate will have a fair trial.

McConnell pointed out the obvious:

“Do you think Chuck Schumer is impartial? Do you think Elizabeth Warren is impartial? Bernie Sanders is impartial?” the Kentucky senator said Monday on Fox News about Democrats calling for an impartial Senate trial. “So let’s quit the charade. This is a political exercise. All I’m asking of Schumer is that we treat Trump the same way we treated Clinton.”

“So if she wants to hold all of the papers, go right ahead,” he said. “I can’t imagine what purpose is served by her holding on to the papers, so sooner or later, I’m assuming she’s going to send them over.”

He also said that “[Pelosi] apparently believes that she can tell us how to run the trial.”

Schumer has stressed that he will act as an impartial juror if the Senate holds a trial.

However, Schumer told CNN, “it seems quite likely” Trump “knows he’s guilty” because he has not spoken before Congress.

Pelosi made it known she “doesn’t care what the Republicans say” when it comes to the trial.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Dear Senator Schumer, please demonstrate your sincerity by recusing yourself and all those who have advocated for this impeachment.

Dear Senator Schumer, please demonstrate your sincerity by recusing yourself and all those who have advocated for this impeachment.

Dear Senator Schumer: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to a fair trial.

Old New Yorker cartoon, wife to businessman, “Now don’t try to reason with me.”

Even now the MSN/DNC axis is preparing fake polls claiming to show that a majority believes a Senate trial will be “unfair” and that Republicans are to blame.

Stop lollygagging Senator McConnell! Set a trial date and dare Democrats to show up. Then when they skip out vote to acquit and tell Democrats they need to “move on”.

    Well, he’s not really impeached yet so, give a deadline for delivery of the articles to formalize the actual impeachment or the senate declares the house vote null and void. No precedent for it, but there isn’t for what the dims are doing either… otherwise, everyone on our side should just stop covering it.

Schumer: I intend to be an impartial vote for “guilty”.

I think Trump should award Noah Feldman the Presidential Medal of Freedom. With every day that goes by, it becomes obvious that impeachment was really a contest of talking points. The Democrats don’t really care about impeaching and removing Trump as long as they can say they impeached him. Well, here is one of their star impeachment witnesses saying they haven’t done it. Doesn’t matter whether every other constitutional expert says they have; the fact that there is one who says they haven’t gives Trump talking points, of which he is the master. I do think it’s interesting that it is possible to agree with both Jonathan Turkey and Noah Feldman on impeachment, though they disagree on this particular point. Turkey is right that this is the thinnest and least legitimate impeachment in U.S. history; Feldman is right that they haven’t actually done it. What fun it is to watch. And by the way, checkout Josh Blackman at the Volokh Conspiracy who opines this morning that it might be up to the Supreme Court as to whether Trump has actually been impeached.

Silly me. I thought the fair trial was for the accused.

    CorkyAgain in reply to Mojo56. | December 23, 2019 at 1:54 pm

    Not according to the Democrats. As we have seen in universities’ handling of sexual harassment and rape claims, Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations re Justice Kavanaugh, and similar #MeToo episodes, the left is far more concerned with being “fair” to the accuser — who must be believed unless and until it is proven beyond any doubt that the accused is innocent.

The damnocrat commies are squealing because they’re getting their asses kicked.

Keep kicking republicans, keep kicking. Kick until there is no life left in that corrupt rats nest cabal of commies.

Actually I’d prefer that she stall. Up to the election. Then when the new, 117th Congress is elected, this time with a GOP majority, it will simply rescind the unsent impeachment articles.

Lucifer Morningstar | December 23, 2019 at 1:54 pm

Aw, damnit. McConnell’s already waffling around about “witnesses”. Which means he’ll eventually give the democrats every fucking thing they’re demanding in the end. Republicans just don’t have a backbone when it comes to fights like this. And democrats like the traitor Schumer and worse Pelosi know that. So be prepared for McConnell to roll over on his back and give the traitor democrats everything they want. It’s gonna happen.

    He better not budge an inch.

    Let her keep her impeachment articles. What’s not to like?

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to RITaxpayer. | December 23, 2019 at 2:28 pm

      He shouldn’t budge and inch but I predict he will. And he’ll give the traitor democrats everything they are demanding just to end this farce.

      McConnell should have simply informed Pelosi the minute she announced that she wasn’t going to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate that the Senate would not consider any bills whatsoever (including pork filled emergency spending bills) until the Articles of Impeachment arrived on his desk allowing him to schedule a trial date. Shut it down. Shut it down forever if necessary. And make sure people know it’s all on Pelosi’s head.

        McConnel already has staked out his position: Same setup as the Clinton impeachment, the rules of which passed 100-0 at that time. That’s the perfect hammer to smack the press with every time they whine about rules. One hundred to nothing. One hundred to nothing. Repeat until tenderized.

        Vaguely I recall it to be: House managers put forth accusation, Defense puts forth their defense, there’s a discussion as to what witnesses to call if any, and it goes from there. I suspect the process will get short-sheeted in the middle as the Democrat’s ball of glitter, Popsicle sticks, and glue comes apart, and a vote for immediate acquittal passes.

    It’s not that they lack a backbone, it’s that they are on the other side.

Lawfare is the legal gang that is advising Pelosi on all matters impeachment. It looks like this is their solution to smearing Trump and not allowing him a venue to find him not guilty. Pelosi never wanted this mess to begin with and this may be her way of getting out of the consequences of it. The founders never dreamed of modern lawyers whose only job is to find undefined areas of the Constitution to exploit with their BS!

Perhaps, if the Dems/Progs were not talking about impeachment since the election, searching for the flimsiest of excuses, trying to re-rig the election that the smartest woman in the world lost, I might take this seriously. The talking points are nearly punch lines in the most basic of losing comedy club tryouts. As the Soros org says: Move On!

It’s not a “political exercise”.

The Dems are arming themselves for the next big battle.

If RBG resigned or died tonight, they’d file the impeachment articles first thing tomorrow morning to hijack the senate and chief justice.

    CKYoung in reply to MrE. | December 23, 2019 at 6:57 pm

    Exactly. The democrats won’t be able to Kavanaugh the next justice, so they want to say PDJT’s next appointment is/will be illegitimate since he is an “impeached” President. PDJT’s relief for this avenue of attack is…. The Supreme Court. The democrats will squeal that the SCOTUS can not give PDJT relief in the SCOTUS, so the seat MUST remain empty until (((the democrats win back the presidency))) such time as an impeached president is sworn in. This is pure, unadulterated lawfare, and it gets even uglier than this.

      I read an article last night about Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice … it cited multiple reasons why in impeachment John Roberts should recuse and even resign. That would potentially leave the court 4-4 and with no chief justice, no one to preside over impeachment. Pending trial Trump could’t nominate Thomas if Roberts resigned … so the system remains ham strung through the election and the new congress, I guess …

      Makes the head spin – and nauseates me just how sick the Dems are.

        CKYoung in reply to MrE. | December 23, 2019 at 11:29 pm

        john roberts runs he FISC, which is square in the middle of Spygate. No way should he be allowed to preside over a Senate trial. There are penalty flags all over the field regarding the FISC. strzok/page while judge shopping, mention rudy contreras. contreras’ involvement then recusal in the Flynn case is a huge problem. The FISC has been warned about possible FISA abuse going back to 2016, but seemingly did nothing until the other day. And now collyer is resigning/retiring? Speculation on my part, but I think the DoJ was onto strzok/page/contreras and let them play it out. Once they did, contreras got yanked and is awaiting his due process. We know the arc of strzok/page, but not where they end up when it is all exposed. The FISC was either complicit or incompetent. If someone (MR) had warned the court that Carter Page was a c_a asset, but the fbi plowed ahead with thier FISA warrant and the court signed off on it, they were definitely complicit.

      Milhouse in reply to CKYoung. | December 24, 2019 at 1:16 am

      What are you two talking about?

      CKYoung: they want to say PDJT’s next appointment is/will be illegitimate since he is an “impeached” President.

      They can call it “illegitimate” all they like, but it will still happen.

      CKYoung: PDJT’s relief for this avenue of attack is…. The Supreme Court.

      Huh? That makes no sense at all. How can any court give him “legitimacy” in the eyes of the Democrats? And why would he turn to any court to counter a political attack on him? Courts are for legal arguments, not political ones.

      MrE: Pending trial Trump could’t nominate Thomas if Roberts resigned

      Why on earth not? Because the Dems will attack it?! They’ll attack any nomination he makes, at any time.

      I really don’t understand what you both have in mind here.

        CKYoung in reply to Milhouse. | December 24, 2019 at 5:06 am

        Milhouse, I actually like you although I disagree with you 95% of the time, and don’t know what you’re talking about 4% of the time. I also respect your opinion despite disagreeing with you.

        There is a fight going on between congress and the Executive Branch (there is also an internal congress/Senate fight but let’s put that aside for now). PDJT has asked SCOTUS to rule on whether congress can run roughshod over the Executive branch. SCOTUS has taken up that argument. congress, having already submitted the sham “obstruction of congress” article is going to be forced to defend it. They know it will not prevail. Therefore congress will argue that the Executive branch forms the Judicial Branch (with advice and consent of the REPUBLICAN Senate in this case). They will argue this makes the Judicial branch illegitimate, so it can be ignored. They will argue at a minimum that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh must be recused since they are PDJT appointees and he is an “impeached” President after all (he is not). Forget that this is how our Framers set this up, the dems are going to scream “partisanship” from the rooftops and rally their msm propaganda cronies in an attempt to sway their low information voters (lowfos) to rail against our Constitutional process. This is a political coup Milhouse. Political warfare using the law, otherwise known as LAWFARE.

          Milhouse in reply to CKYoung. | December 24, 2019 at 5:02 pm

          I still don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you saying the Dems will make a political argument, or a legal one? Because I can’t imagine what legal argument they can make. Sure, they can call the President’s appointees “illegitimate” just as they call the President himself “illegitimate”. How does his being impeached make any difference to this? They called him and his appointees that before and they will continue to do so now. Legally it means nothing, and politically it means “poopyhead”.

In his spare time Chuck Schumer like “Omnibus Loaf” which would have to contain pork.

here is a question I have not seen addressed anywhere else. When the senate acquits Trump of impeachment does that qualify, when the democrats attempt to take another bite of the impeachment apple as double jeopardy.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to ronk. | December 23, 2019 at 4:59 pm

    If the democrats learned any lesson from this impeachment debacle then they wouldn’t even try to double dip with the impeachment process. But since I don’t have any faith that they did they’ll do it and the court(s) will have to decide whether it’s “double jeopardy” or not. I’d guess the court would rule it’s not as according to the Constitution it doesn’t seem as if the Senate Impeachment trial is considered a criminal trial.

    To whit:

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. (Article 1; Section3)

    In other words, the impeachment trial is not a criminal trial and therefore “double jeopardy” would not attach if the House went after Pres. Trump a second time. Or a third time. Or fourth.

    Not a lawyer and just my own opinion. Take it for what it’s worth.

    Milhouse in reply to ronk. | December 23, 2019 at 6:24 pm

    There is no such thing as double jeopardy in impeachment. The house can impeach someone as many times as it likes, for the same or different offenses.

      there is nothing in the constitution that exempts the impeachment or trial from any other part of the constitution.

        Milhouse in reply to ronk. | December 24, 2019 at 1:21 am

        You have it backwards. The constitution never says that a person can’t be impeached twice for the same offense. Therefore he can be. There’s nothing to exempt it from.

        DaveGinOly in reply to ronk. | December 25, 2019 at 10:42 pm

        The Constitution (as cited above) explicitly says an official who is impeached can also be tried (criminally, in court) for the same offense, so impeachment plainly does not qualify as a “trial” for the purposes of “double jeopardy.”

      I think about the twelfth or fifteenth time, some nice young Representatives will go the Speaker and take the gavel away from her, saying it’s time to go to the Home For Old Speakers and lie down for a bit.

      Heck, I think they’ll still be trying to impeach him in 2025. He’s certainly going to set a record for Most Number of Impeachment Votes in the House anyway.

    CKYoung in reply to ronk. | December 23, 2019 at 7:04 pm

    The Senate needs to determine if the democrats articles are legitimate. They are not. If the democrats articles are determined by the Senate to be illegitimate, reject them outright, no trial is needed.

      Milhouse in reply to CKYoung. | December 24, 2019 at 1:23 am

      The trial is where the senate makes that determination.

        CKYoung in reply to Milhouse. | December 24, 2019 at 5:16 am

        I agree.

        Senate: We now open the impeachment trial of PDJT. Let’s first hold a vote to determine if “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction of Congress” are Article 2 Section 4 Impeachable offenses, and if the congress forwarded Article 2 Section 4 Impeachable offenses contained within their allegations of “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction of Congress.”

        I would bet my next paycheck the answer to that is a solid “NO.”

          Milhouse in reply to CKYoung. | December 24, 2019 at 5:04 pm

          Either that or give the prosecutors two hours for an opening speech, and then vote to dismiss on the grounds that there was nothing alleged that would warrant impeachment.

          DaveGinOly in reply to CKYoung. | December 25, 2019 at 10:45 pm

          To underscore Milhouse’s comment (at 5:04 – there’s no “reply” tag to the comment), allow the managers to present the case, then ask the Senate for the analog of a directed verdict of not guilty, for lack of evidence and/or failure to identify a crime.

Show me an impartial member of the House or Senator, and I’ll show you a real, living blue unicorn that will kneel down on its forelegs, dip its horn into the canal in Brooklyn, and de-pollute it until you can drink directly from it.

The Senate from the clinton impeachment demonstrated it is a political process, not a legal process. The prosecution more than met their burden of proof that clinton committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors. But because of “muh economy” and “muh re-election” the vote to remove failed. The current democrat wailing and gnashing of teeth is all sound and fury signifying nothing.

Mitch ought to just convene the senate right after Christmas, hold a vote to exonerate PDJT and then announce a special prosecutor to look into crimes in Ukraine by the biden cartel. And if it leads to other democrats being investigated for crimes well, we’ll all get to laugh.

I’ve had enough of the sausage factory tour. I once attended the Gilroy Garlic Festival and tried garlic ice cream. It was a lot like this impeachment: fascinating, but ultimately repulsive.

and another thing… The best single line in this docudrama so far has come from the Senate Majority Leader who said ” I fail to see the leverage in withholding something we don’t want in the first place.”

The way I read the Constitution, the Chief Justice presides over any Senate trial, just like a trial judge presides over a trial in the lower courts. It is the judge, not the jury, who decides the format of the trial, witnesses, admissibility of evidence, privileges, etc. Therefore, neither Pelosi or McConnell know what they are talking about. It will be the CJ that will do all of that, not the Senate (the jury).

    Milhouse in reply to Carl. | December 24, 2019 at 5:05 pm

    No. The senate sets its own rules and procedures, and can override any ruling from the chair.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2019 at 10:53 pm

      If I am not mistaken, the CJ’s oversight of the impeachment trial is likely limited to being a potential tie-breaking vote. Normally, this would be the VP, but he’s disqualified by the Constitution because it was presumed he’d be partisan.

        DaveGinOly in reply to DaveGinOly. | December 25, 2019 at 10:54 pm

        Or I should say “biased,” because he could be either loyal to the president or he could see impeachment as his ticket to the Oval Office.

This particular fiasco has taught me that a substantial number of alleged Trump supporters have no idea of what a dismissal for failure to state a claim means.

They also do not understand how both causes of action and defendants are tried separately.

There are people who seem to think that the ONLY way to have any “justice” is for there to be one, big, messy “trial” for everyone, Trump, Joe Biden. Hunter Biden and Ciaramella at the very least, and that “nothing has happened” yet, and will not, unless somebody gets frog-marched.

Maybe I’ve been looking at false flag posts from Democrats.