Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Mitch McConnell Responds to Chuck Schumer Impeachment Trial Demands: Get Stuffed

Mitch McConnell Responds to Chuck Schumer Impeachment Trial Demands: Get Stuffed

“The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury, to hear a trial, not to re-run the entire fact-finding investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1RklrwQ448 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkcH3y8UCmM

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s request to call four new witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.

From Axios:

“We don’t create impeachments, Mr. President. We judge them.

“The House chose this road. It is their duty to investigate. It’s their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election. As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House’s obligation to, quote, ‘build an ironclad case to act.’

“If they fail, they fail. It is not the Senate’s job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to guilty. That would hardly be impartial justice.”

McConnell said that “[I]f the House Democrats’ case is this deficient, this thin, the answer is not for the judge and jury to cure it here in the Senate.”

The investigation is the House’s job, McConnell stressed. He added that the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees should have completed the “fact-finding mission.”

To change the Senate’s role in impeachment “could invite a string of future ‘dubious’ and ‘frivolous’ impeachment inquiries.”

If McConnell accepted Schumer’s requests, he said it would set a “nightmarish precedent” for future impeachment trials:

“The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury, to hear a trial, not to re-run the entire fact-finding investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it,” he said on the Senate floor.

McConnell also pointed out flaws in Schumer’s letter that insisted he wanted to keep “the bipartisan spirit” that took place during President Bill Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial:

The majority leader on Tuesday also pointed out that Schumer’s letter referenced “keeping with the bipartisan spirit” of the procedures followed in the 1999 impeachment trial of then-President Bill Clinton, but stated that Schumer then went on “to demand things that would break with the 1999 model.” For example, he recalled that the 1999 impeachment trial procedures were laid out in two separate resolutions, with many of the details coming after it began and following a motion to dismiss that had been filed by Democrats including Schumer himself. Schumer’s letter, however, called for all procedures to be set out in a single resolution.

“Look, most people understand what the democratic leader is really after,” McConnell said, alleging that what Schumer wanted to do was “lock in live witnesses.”

The House could vote on the articles of impeachment on Wednesday. Congress breaks for Christmas on Friday.

Schumer asked to call four new witnesses who did not testify in House hearings:

  • Mick Mulvaney – acting White House chief of staff
  • John Bolton – former national security adviser
  • Michael Duffey – associate director for national security, Office of Management and Budget
  • Robert Blair – senior adviser to Mulvaney

Schumer took to the Senate floor after McConnell’s speech:

“I listened to the leader’s speech. I did not hear a single sentence, a single argument as to why the witnesses I suggested should not give testimony,” he said. “Why is the president so afraid to have these witnesses come testify? What are they afraid the witnesses would say?”

“I’d like to hear Leader McConnell come to the floor and give specific reasons why the four witnesses we’ve asked for shouldn’t testify,” he continued, suggesting they could provide information that would help the president’s case.

But McConnell explained why he does not want to call new witnesses. He specifically said it is not the Senate’s job to lead a “fact-finding mission.” That should have happened in the House impeachment hearings.

Schumer stated he will bring votes to the floor “on specific witnesses.” He would need 51 votes to call a witness, but the Republicans hold 53 seats.

Schumer also complained that McConnell’s rejection shows he is not working with the minority leader to set the procedures for the trial.

However, McConnell said he is eager to meet with Schumer to work on the trial procedures.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

No Chuck YOU, you botched the case now its a trail. You’re not going to get to call an endless list of wackos.

So they are going to vote on this tomorrow. Let’s assume they vote in the affirmative for one or both articles, then they refuse to present the articles to the Senate. Is Trump really impeached if they do that?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to NotCoach. | December 17, 2019 at 1:30 pm

    In short; “Yes”. Remember “Impeachment” is not the same as removal or even a guilty finding.

    “Impeachment” is basically the equivalent of being charged, not convicted.

      NotCoach in reply to Gremlin1974. | December 17, 2019 at 1:34 pm

      But that is my question. If they don’t present the charges is he really impeached?

        Dusty Pitts in reply to NotCoach. | December 17, 2019 at 1:38 pm

        They adopt the articles but “refuse to present them to the Senate”? How does that work? I don’t think that’s an option.

          NotCoach in reply to Dusty Pitts. | December 17, 2019 at 1:44 pm

          It’s the option they are kicking around if McConnell refuses Schumer’s demands.

          https://www.dailywire.com/news/amid-rising-opposition-to-impeachment-new-democrat-strategy-emerges-withhold-impeachment-articles

          Milhouse in reply to Dusty Pitts. | December 17, 2019 at 2:28 pm

          Weird. I guess they’re free to do that, and use it as a political point in next year’s campaigns, and the Republicans are free to do the same from the opposite point of view. Legally it would be meaningless, like an indictment that is not sent for trial.

          You often hear the term “unindicted conspirator”. That basically means someone who has been accused of something. They don’t get a trial at which to clear their names, because that’s not what trials are for. Legally they’re presumed innocent. But people can forever bring up the fact that they were accused, and their only answer available is “yeah, someone said something about me, so what?”.

          tom_swift in reply to Dusty Pitts. | December 17, 2019 at 3:02 pm

          Yes, the D’s want to able to insist that DJT is one of our few Presidents to be impeached, but dread him Tweeting about being exonerated in the Senate.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to NotCoach. | December 17, 2019 at 2:09 pm

        The Communist/Fascist DEMS have turned impeachment
        into a glowing endorsement of integrity!

        Dusty Pitts in reply to NotCoach. | December 17, 2019 at 2:16 pm

        After reading the DailyWire link, I think this is just more wishcasting by desperate Democrats. There won’t be a Democrat majority in the Senate again until long after Trump leaves office.

        fscarn in reply to NotCoach. | December 17, 2019 at 4:02 pm

        “If they don’t present the charges is he really impeached?”

        If I were to do legal research on this question I’d start with grand jury indictments. The DA has three choices: move forward on the indictment; dismiss it; let it languish (= do nothing). I’d look to see if there were any people indicted who tried to restore their reputation in the case of the last two choices who framed the question, “Is a dismissed or ignored indictment really an indictment under the law.”

        My off-the-cuff answer would be, yes, he was impeached by the competent authority to impeach, just as the guy who was indicted was so indicted by competent authority.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to NotCoach. | December 17, 2019 at 5:30 pm

        I think the answer would still be yes, he would still technically have been impeached. However, if I am understanding what I have read correctly the articles would expire on Jan. 3 2020 and at that point would have to be redone.

    CKYoung in reply to NotCoach. | December 17, 2019 at 7:35 pm

    Based on the plain language of Section 2 Articoe 4, I would say no, PDJT would not be impeached as the democrats have drafted Articles that are not enumerated in that Section. Even if they forward ‘abuse of power” and “obstruction of congress,” I would argue he is still not impeached as those are not enumerated Articles of Impeachment. They are word salad assertions with no basis in fact.

The Republicans are almost sure to lose at least two votes. The question becomes whether or not they can pick up a few from the Democratic side of the aisle. Surely there are some who would like to get this whole thing over before their primary season begins.

I understand that the Democrats had to go forward with Impeachment because their base has demanded it, but I think that their best path forward is to be able to claim that despite their best attempts, the Republican Senate blocked them. That way they get to go to their home districts having kept their promises while condemning those ‘Evil Republicans’®️ who stopped things.

If the Senate gets into the witness business, it is going to get ugly for Joe Biden, at least, and no doubt others. If it takes forcing a couple of Democratic Senators from Red-leaning districts to vote “No” to counteract some Republican “Yes” votes it’s worth it.

    Dusty Pitts in reply to Hodge. | December 17, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    In the Senate, 67 votes are needed to convict. Schumer will need to find 20 Republicans willing to convict.

    He won’t. He has to know this.

      Twenty to convict but only three to allow a witness to appear.

      From the article:

      “ Schumer stated he will bring votes to the floor “on specific witnesses.” He would need 51 votes to call a witness, but the Republicans hold 53 seats.”

        NotCoach in reply to Hodge. | December 17, 2019 at 1:46 pm

        It works both ways. Even if enough Republicans allow the Dems more witnesses they will also allow witnesses for the defense.

          Voyager in reply to NotCoach. | December 17, 2019 at 2:28 pm

          The ones who are most likely to squish on witnesses are also the ones most likely to get the vapors at calling Schiff, Nadler or Biden to testify. If they bend it will only be in ways Schumer wants them to.

        Dusty Pitts in reply to Hodge. | December 17, 2019 at 2:19 pm

        With witnesses or without, the outcome will be the same. Schumer knows this, so it’s all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | December 17, 2019 at 1:30 pm

Now they are concerned about bipartisanship?

Democrats will need 20 Republicans to vote with them to secure a conviction.

Twenty.

How many Republican Senators are there from states that voted for Hillary in 2016? Even in a blue state, a Republican can’t get elected without Republican votes, so how many of those blue-state Republican Senators are planning to never seek re-election ever again?

Less than twenty, I guarantee.

This is a political process in a political body to achieve a political purpose. OF COURSE politics will be a consideration.

Schumer can’t be serious.

OnTheLeftCoast | December 17, 2019 at 1:38 pm

Maybe Trump can send some of Mitch’s cocaine to other Mitt and a few other Republican senators.

southern commenter | December 17, 2019 at 1:39 pm

You got your answer, Upchuck so shut uP!

I have a really bad feeling about this. But, I am more afraid of what will happen in the streets than what will happen in Congress.

We already know that if the Dems do not get their way, there will be violence.

“Schumer also complained that McConnell’s rejection shows he is not working with the minority leader to set the procedures for the trial.”

McConnell even criticized Schumer for trying to negotiate those procedures privately with McConnell opting instead to negotiate through the media. THAT is the real “stuff it” motivation for McConnell. Too late Chuckie.

Because this is still in Rules, I think McConnel can have a blanket vote on witnesses allowed. Schumer will not be allowed to go Popinjay and try to kavanaugh the proceedings.

Comanche Voter | December 17, 2019 at 2:26 pm

Chuckie, you want witnesses? We’ll give you witnesses. Biden; Hunter Biden; Eric Ciaemerella the “phantom whistleblower”; Adam Schiff. Chuckie is as goofy as Caligula. You follow him, you’ll have a bloodbath in the Senate.

“I did not hear a single sentence …”

Perhaps then you need English lessons, or hearing aids, Chuck.

This is a bad idea on the minorities part:
1. If more evidence, witnesses are needed then the articles shouldn’t pass in HoR and should be rejected.
2. R have some ideas about witness testimony as well so the d can’t reasonably expect to prevent them after insisting on additional witness testimony.

Bottom line is either Schumer got played or he and McConnell are working together with this theatre to arrive at best outcome for them if not POTUS:
1. Take up articles and immediately vote for acquittal
2. McConnell has this behind him and can focus on legislation and confirming appointments
3. The d party can say ‘we tried but evil McConnell let Jorge man bad go in an unfair process’
4. POTUS doesn’t get to hammer accuser and process over a month long trial.

“Abuse of power” and “obstruction of congress” are not listed in Section 2 Article 4 of the Constitution. The democrats do not have any evidence and have not articulated how/why thier sham articles contain actual, proven ‘Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes/Misdemeanors. The Senate should reject these sham Articles outright. If the democrats want a do-over, let them play in their sandbox all by themselves. They’ve shot their wad on this process, it’s over.

Let’s hope that those 53 stick together as strong as the 197 in the House did.

These are LITERALLY “Trumped-up charges with a capital “T.” It’s the same meaning as the little “t” version of the term. The Dems are holding a weak-suited hand, playable only because they get to call the “trumps.”

In the upcoming Senate trial others will call “trumps.” I expect a different suit.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend