Media, Politics

Democratic Senators Line Up in Declarations Of Guilt Before The Senate Impeachment Trial

Both Democratic members and various media outfits have continued to castigate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Lindsey Graham for saying that they will not pretend to be unbiased as jurors. I have been critical of such statements treating the Senate trial as simply a political exercise. However, I am concerned over the striking lack of media coverage of Democratic members who continue to signal that they also have made up their minds on the verdict before an actual trial has even begun. I recently discussed the statement of Senator Chris Coons on the dangers of failing to convict and remove Trump. The latest such examples were evident last night at the Democratic debates where Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar pronounced the guilt of Donald Trump before any trial. None of those comments yielded the shock and disgust over their failure to reserve their judgment. Klobuchar declared that the impeachment was nothing less than “global Watergate.”

They are of course not alone. Many of the Democratic Senators have declared the guilt of Trump on the merit of the impeachable offenses as well as other claimed crimes.

For example, Senator Richard Blumenthal wrote in a Washington Post op-ed on Dec. 3 declaring Trump’s guilt and has previously said that Trump was guilty of a host of other impeachable and criminal offenses.

Likewise, Sen, Chris Murphy has declared “President Trump preyed on a vulnerable foreign nation, dependent on the U.S. for its survival, and used taxpayer money as leverage to get that nation to work for the personal political benefit of the president.”

Sen. Jack Reed has declared “The president essentially was trying to shake down the government of Ukraine for a political favor.”

Sen. Brian Schatz stated “The framers established impeachment for a person like him and for a time like this. What remains to be seen is whether or not the Republican Party swallows the republic.”

Sen. Ed Markey declared “Donald Trump, by his words and deeds, has left Congress with no choice but to begin an impeachment proceeding in order to protect our national security, our election security, our rule of law, indeed, our very democracy. There is no place for Donald Trump to hide.”

Jeanne Shaheen declared “It appears that the president of the United States is using his public office to extract a political ‘favor’ and interfere in our elections.”

I strongly believe that senators should reserve their judgments and expressly decline to speak to the merits on both sides. To his credit, Senator Robert Casey has maintained that position:

“If the House votes to impeach the President, I would be required as a U.S. Senator to vote in a Senate trial that would determine whether the President should be convicted and removed from office. Should such a situation arise, I will keep an open mind.” 

However, if the media is going to experience collective vapors with every comment by Republican senators, it can at least acknowledge that such comments have been the rule not the exception among those jurors. We might then be able to encourage other senators to follow the more principles line of waiting for the trial before announcing the verdict.

121 thoughts on “Democratic Senators Line Up in Declarations Of Guilt Before The Senate Impeachment Trial”

  1. Everything old is new again.
    ——————————-
    “Why am I running? Because this is about electing the jury to impeach @POTUS and I will make a heck of juror,”
    -Rashida Tlaib, Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives, March 1, 2018.
    ——————————-
    “We’re going to impeach the motherf****r.”
    -Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D. Mich.), January 3, 2019.

    1. So now they ;let porn in and why did they let a porno in. She didn’t take the oath of office and that is a constitutional requirement to be seated same as citizenship, age, and enough votes. Pelosi knew and knows the Squat all four are illegals and seated them anyway thus violating her Oath of Office. Impeach Pelosi? Yes and jail that criminal.

    1. One of those who will form the new Indpendent Constitutional Democrat Party and become a citizen voter magnet thus driving the pornos and illegals out of government and with any justice out of our country.

  3. Jonathan Turley, it is not a trial in the judicial tradition. See the essay by Ungar that I linked to earlier

  4. In calling attention to the uniqueness of the Resistance, and the actions of the Senate under its influence, Attorney General Barr highlighted a serious long-term obstacle to the successful functioning of our government. That part of his Federalist Society speech—actually the most serious—did not receive much media coverage (although Holder said Barr had “exposed himself as a partisan actor, not an impartial law enforcement official”) but unless cooler heads prevail in the next few years, we may see the government “of the people, by the people and for the people” perish from the Earth.
    https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/12/20/the-attorney-general-and-the-resistance/?utm_source=LAL+Updates&utm_campaign=1aae3ef23e-LAL_Daily_Updates&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_53ee3e1605-1aae3ef23e-72413845

  5. Washington Post Reports That Trump..

    Was Convinced Ukraine Meddled In Election

    The WaPo is prominently featuring an extensive story saying that Trump came into office believing it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election.

    According to said piece, Paul Manafort was the first to give Trump this impression. Trump later asked Vladimir Putin who ‘confirmed’ it. Aides tried repeatedly to get this idea out of Trump’s head. But Trump remained convinced. This may have motivated Trump effort to force President Zelensky to ‘acknowledge’ Ukraine’s role in the election meddling.

      1. well too bad our old pal anon1 isnt here (overtly) because his gal Klobuchar KLOBBERED mayor Pete.

        Between Liz Fauxcahontas Warren and Klobuchar Klocking him, he probably had a good cry before bed over the spanking he received!

        https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/democratic-2020-debate-buttigieg-warren-klobuchar-fight.html

        It’s a little bit like the moms told the little boy from the younger generation to go home and come back in 2 decades when he’s actually had a substantial career

        kind of amusing how the moms unleashed on him, wow.

        at least Biden didn’t squeeze his shoulders and sniff his hair!

        1. Mayor Pete actually had a good comeback— held his own to some degree.

          “Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next President of the United States,” she said.

          Buttigieg, say what you will about him, has never heard a retort to which he has not had a long-prepared response, and noted that Warren was a millionaire, unlike him.

          “This is the problem with issuing purity tests you yourself cannot pass,” Buttigieg said.

          [Fauxcahontas is loaded, even though she wants to tax the rich or whatever]

        2. “Now there’s a real competition going on up here,” Sanders said. “My good friend Joe, and he is a good friend, he’s received contributions from 44 billionaires. Pete on the other hand”—not Bernie’s “good friend,” mind you—“he’s trailing—you’ve only got 39 billionaires contributing.

          “So Pete, we look forward to you—I know you’re an energetic guy and a competitive guy—to see if you can take on Joe on that issue,” Bernie said.

          — from the slate article

        3. Klobuchar Klocking him, he probably had a good cry before bed over the spanking he received!

          How do you know he doesn’t like being spanked?

        4. “Between Liz Fauxcahontas Warren and Klobuchar Klocking him, he probably had a good cry before bed over the spanking he received!”
          **************

          Here’s betting that wasn’t his first or last spanking — even that day!

      1. Steve: this is from your article:

        There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election.

        1. That statement Peter mentions assuming it is accurate (we don’t have all the facts) doesn’t exclude Ukrainian government officials acting against Trump. Once Trump was in power it wasn’t top down

          From the article: “Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.”

        2. Well I appreciated that statement by the authors. But it doesn’t follow that Trump’s concern about Ukraneian government officials including the Ukraine President is an example of seeing something that isn’t there and concocted out of whole cloth. For that you’d need to claim something like Trump colluded with Russia.

          2. And that brings us back to BFD So what? Collusion is still not a crime. Dead end being beaten to death like a dead dog.

    3. Oh, they meddled alright. Incompetently, in a disorganized fashion, but they tried

      the facts are out there, but you aren’t interested in facts any more than your A team editors at Wapoo

    4. Wapo ….sounds like Kapo…. is not a reliable source of news but a propaganda for the Socialist Regressive illegals infesting our government and country.

  6. Yeah the Democrats are lining up with their declarations of guilt right along with all the Republicans lining up with their unchangeable protestations of, not innocence, but of unfairness, the teams have been assembled, their Partisan allegiances strongly formed, and yet they all forget that it’s not a game, they don’t make the rules, and they don’t have Suffrage to make the decisions of guilt or innocence. In fact their teams don’t even get to play in the game, and the referee isn’t a referee at all, he is the Presiding Judge and you they are in his court now.

    The Senate is an assembly of the States, a simple confederacy of the States as Equals, the States are the Members of the Senate, and the States have Equal Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus on All Questions of interest to their Union. It is the Chief Justice’s Responsibility to ensure that this order is maintained throughout the trial for impeachment, just as it is for the President of the Senate’s for all other Legislative matters and Processes.

    The GOP does not Control the Senate, because the Parties are not assembled in the Senate, the States are, and the Parties are not apportioned any Suffrage to Participate in the Decision Making of the Senate, the States are, this is a decision to remove a representative of the States’ Union, and the States as the Union have all the Authority to remove any one from their Executive Departments who does not subordinate themselves to the decisions made by their Union as they are assembled in Congress, and their Supreme Government Authority as they Union.

    Partisan Politics has Bitten Off more than it can Chew!

    The Parties don’t control the Senate, the Majority Leader does not Preside in the Senate, and the Vice President who does preside in the Senate doesn’t preside over the Trial in the Senate.

    The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Trial in Senate, and as the Person of authority the Chief Justice determines the custody of the accused while awaiting trial and during trial, in fact the President was technically placed in his courts custody upon the finding of impeachment reached in the House which caused an absence in the Presidency which must filled by the Vice President until the end of the Trial in the Senate, or if the President is convicted and removed causing a vacancy in the Presidency, then the Vice President will continue to perform the duties of the President until a new President is elected.

    The Chief Justice also will set the time and date of the trial in the Senate, he will set the process of the trial, he will seat the Senators as the impartial Jury, and he will instruct the Jury of their Constitutional duty in the trial and how their State’s have Equal Suffrage in the Senate, even though they vote by Senators Present. This is Cheif Justice John Roberts Court, not the Senators, and Definitely not the GOP!

    A quorum for the trial is a simple Majority of the Senators, 51, meaning Chief Justice Roberts can dismiss all Senators who have expressed or show they cannot be impartial as their oath requires, and conviction will be by a 2/3 Majority consensus of the Senators Present which could be as few as 34 Senators voting for conviction.

    The Partisan Political System bit off more than it can chew this time, and it’s Chief Justice Roberts’ Responsibility and Constitutional duty to inform all involved of that fact, or he could face impeachment himself!

    Partisanship is on trial in the Senate, and the Chief Justice will preside over its fate.

    1. The Senate can vote at ANY time during the impeachment trial to overrule ANY decision made by the presiding judge. The Senate runs the impeachment trial, not the presiding judge. There are no ifs, ands, or buts.

      1. Where in the Constitution do you find that, it isn’t, the Senators will vote when Chief Justice Roberts tells them it’s appropriate to vote, until then it’s his Court, and He is the Authority in that Court until the Completion of the trial.

        Wake the F-up! You don’t make up what you want just because you want to call it Politics, this is a Criminal Trial, and it will take place in Chief Justice Roberts’ Court!

          1. Wow, that’s a snappy retort! Yeah I would have benefited from indoctrination by the same Partisan idiots that designed this Political Monopoly House Rules Version of the Constitution, an interpretation that we all seem to believe is equal or superior to the Original. I’ll just stick with the being taught to read and comprehend for myself!

            Maybe you could have benefited from that education yourself!

            1. I got an A in government and an A – in Constitutional law. I did ok.

              You should work on your grammar too, and form a coherent thought successfully, before you presume to lecture everyone.

              You maybe a good programmer at Fortran or Java or HTML or whatever you guys use these days
              but English is not your forte.

                1. Fed, you have it backwards. The Constitution provides the powers. Since you made the claim it is up to you to prove it with the “appropriate Constitutional references”

                  1. Yeah, the Constitution provides All decision making Powers to Congress, an assembly of the States as the Union as a decision making assembly! Article 1 Section 1, of the United States Constitution. The Parties are not part of that Confederacy of the States or of their Decision Making assembly, Congress!

                    The United States, in Congress Assembled, the Union which makes our Country the United States of America!

                    1. I’m waiting for your evidence along with a quote from the Constitution. I don’t call myself an expert on Constitutional matters but you do. Since you have such a high opinion of your expertise prove it.

                    1. Fed, you have proven that you are all talk otherwise you would have quickly provided the reference to the text of the Constitution and your explanation. So far you haven’t been able to prove your case to anyone. That is a sure sign of an oversized ego and an undersized brain.

                2. on the other hand as the initiator it is your duty to quote the appropriate Constitutional References to support your position and failed to do so.

                  Be reminded that the federal and anti federal papers are opinions and are not law just as the Declaration of Independence is a mission statement but is not law,.

              2. I don’t know what kind of law you practiced after you received your JD but I can tell it has nothing to do with trial Law, and I hope and pray you were never a Judge.

                I’ve witnessed Judges admonishing council for the Prosecution and the Defense for feeble arguments like the one you made, and if you don’t understand what the word preside means in any Judges’ court they will put you in jail until you do learn what the word preside means.

                Neither the Prosecution nor the defense, determines the process or conditions under which the trial will conducted, and every Presiding Judge will quickly remind anyone who is in their Court Room who is the Person of Authority.

                1. I practice the kind of law that pays the bills where regular people with real problems come in and pay me money and then I try my best to fix them whether that involves showing up in court or not. I’m just a workaday kind of guy out here in flyover, nothing special

                  you can rest assured i will never be a judge. i have already been smeared enough in the real world to prevent that. and I don’t intend to cut back my earnings at this point in life, too many bills to pay.

                  I’m also not going to teach. maybe since you’re such a genius you want to give that a swing? go ahead send out your applications and with your keen insights into what the texts REALLY mean I’m sure you’ll be hired post haste

                  1. I’m not looking to be hired, I’m retired, but if I can fix this mess that we call our government then it’s worth it to me to try, even if I fail. And you know, since you studied law, that they don’t teach the Constitution in law school, even in Constitutional law. You maybe had one class, but even there you were taught the constitution in two parts, the Articles, which only form the Governing system, and the amendments which try to address personal rights with respect to our government. The articles are timeless, the amendments are time sensitive and do not travel the test of time well.

                    You definitely didn’t study the Articles of Confederation but if you had you would realize that they were transferred entirely into the Constitution almost without alteration, because the Constitution wasn’t meant to replace the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution expanded on the articles of confederation with the addition of the House, assembly of the confederacy of the States by the principles of republican Government to address the disparity that existed between the States in their population and wealth, a per capita normalization to join the states into a Union equally.

                    We got off the rails when we forgot that the Union of the States is what makes us a country, and that Union is a confederacy, not a democracy, because a democracy is a mode of a decision making assembly, not a Governing system. We are not a country of Parties, and the Constitution does not utilize partisan assembly. Everything in the Constitution is about the assembly of the States into a Union and how decisions will be made by their Union.

                    Our Government today is FUBAR, because of the improper consolidation of the States, and they took that improper consolidation to the limit by partisan consolidation, and the only way to fix it is to separate the States by the Federal Principle and reform their confederacy.

                    I know you are smart enough to under That.

                    1. The 17th amendment is fatally flawed in two ways, first it was made under conditions that the States were denied their equal Suffrage in the Senate as directed by Article 5 of the Constitution, and the phrase “The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”, which sets the electorate, and process for assembly, to that which formed the States own most numerous Legislative Branch, a process which assembles the People in their Collective Capacity, a process which is in each State’s own Constitution which makes it unalterable by any means.

                      Federalist #52 Madison
                      “The first view to be taken of this part of the government relates to the qualifications of the electors and the elected. Those of the former are to be the same with those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone. To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option. It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments, and it cannot be feared that the people of the States will alter this part of their constitutions in such a manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the federal Constitution.”

                      This amendment also attempts to circumvent the equality of the Senate by State and sever the connection between the Senate and the State Legislatures, the People in their Collective Capacity of each State, which is a Check on the Power of the Senate.

                      Federalist #62 Madison
                      “III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but “of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.” A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

                      In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

                      Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.”

                      The aggregate assembly of the Senate must be maintained at all times to ensure that the distribution of Suffrage and means of reaching Majority Consensus is preserved as Equal per State, an Assembly and distribution of power through Suffrage which is structural and therefore not alterable by any means, Congressional States or Constitutional amendment. This is true of the House as well where it’s assembly is doubly protected by
                      Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 and Article 4 Section 4 which guarantees each State a republican form of Government which guarantees that the House will always be assembled as a Confederated Republic, the aggregate assembly of the States by per capita proportional representation and Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus.

                      The Bicameral Legislature is the Assembly of two distinct modes of assembly with corresponding Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus to form Checks and Balances in the decision making process for the Confederacy by forming two coequal branches of Government, all laws must first receive the Majority Consensus of the People in their Collective Capacity, then receive the Concurrence by a Majority Consensus of the States in their Collective Capacity.

                      The 17th amendment, along with every amendment after the 11th must be immediately removed from the Constitution, and before any other amends be. Added to the Constitution they must first show the benefit and changes that are intended to correct deficiencies in the Constitution, not just to make it easier for the Constitution to be bent to the Partisan will of those who would realize some advantage from the Bastardization and usurpation of the Constitution or the principles established within!

                      Be careful what you ask for!

                    2. That went further than I had proposed by using the ‘recall’ but as a first step recall does give citizens immense power to get from point now to point then.

                      I usually say it’s a shame only 17 States have recall and thus a Capital S while 33 states are little more than slave states and yet guess which group prattles on and on about ‘our democracy’ yet refuses to use the one part of that mostly false statement that is true the direct vote of the self governing citizens.

                      Of what use is the party system when two thirds insist on living as slaves to the socialists regressives whose constant ‘our democracy’ is just rude, crude cover up for their role as slave masters?

                      With recall and the addition of one more constitutionalist justice SCOTUS can revisit the banning of recall for what are State selected, state delegates to the national congregation and make that power of citizens to use a real democratic tool instead of whining an untruth called “Our democracy,”

                      Is there a downside. Perhaps. States should pay for an in state office for each Representative and Senator with one or two staff and a primary salary. Then the federal leve can pay a cost of living stipend for temporary duty. How much? Well the first part is up the States isn’t it? The rest is up to … The congress and that would be Comrade Pelosi unless of course she is subjected to ‘recall’

                      Recall is a way to weaponize ordinary citizen’s voting power and win , lose or draw a constant barrage of recalls can bring tears to a politicians eyes while reminding all of them whose the boss. Not to mention added campaign costs etc etc etc.

                    3. My comment is awaiting moderation, a condition which if it persist I will find another way to respond. But let’s leave it to say that the 17th amendment is fatally flawed and was made under conditions which are violation of Article 5 of the Constitution and it does more to destabilize the Senate, and Congress as a whole, by trying to circumvent the assembly and distribution of Suffrage in Congress by State and changing the modes of reaching Majority Consensus from State to Party Affiliation, a condition which is fundamentally structural and cannot be changed by Congressional Statute or Constitutional Amendment.

                    5. Black Empowerment with Darrell? Or is it the New Federalist Papers? Or is it the Federalist Papers Revisited?

                      I’ve read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers and other original source documents. You are by far a more difficult read. When you couple your writing style with arrogance and anger, you are no longer difficult to read, but not readable. Oddly, your podcasts, or at least the one I began listening to, have a completely different style. A bit slow for my liking, but certainly less condescending.

                      The BE w/DHE aspect is interesting from the perspective you seem to be the alter ego of Enigmainblack. William Spivey also has a WordPress blog. Check it out as well as his FB page.
                      https://enigmainblack.wordpress.com/
                      https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Blogger/Enigma-in-Black-518410511680626/

            1. Paul, what do you do with a student like federalist that thinks he is right but is dead wrong and doesn’t make sense. Would you leave him alone and let him believe what he wants or would you try and set him straight? It seems that his teachers decided to leave him as an example to all others that being wrong doesn’t look good.

              1. Allan – this would depend on how the student acts out in class. I might suggest that he be checked to see if he is Oppositionally Defiant. As such, we could set up a 504 for him and make sure he was not punished for his behavior that fell under the 504.

                However, sometimes you can lead a student to knowledge but you can’t make them think.

        2. Article 1 , Section 3: ¨The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments”

          I think you’re missing a few IQ points.

          1. They try all impeachments, but that doesn’t mean they preside over the proceeding or determine the process for the proceeding. In the case of the removal of the President, the person of authority who presides is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for all other impeachments the President of the Senate Presides as the Person of authority.

            The prosecutor’s don’t control the trial or the court room, the Presiding Judge does, and in this case that person of authority is Chief Justice John Roberts!

            1. You’re totally wrong. About the Clinton impeachment trial in the Senate, Chief Justice Rehnquist said

              ‘I did nothing in particular, and did it very well.'”

              Disabuse yourself of your own fantasies

              1. Who said that Rehnquist executed his Constitutional duty as directed by Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6; “ The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”, or maybe Rehnquist didn’t comprehend what the word preside means!

                1. Gee Rehnquist should have called you on the phone and asked you I guess but you were still pulling at a teat at the time and weren’t quite so smart back then

                2. That alone refutes the claims about who is setting up and running this show. The Judge presides when the trial is scheduled and that is the Senate’s choice.

            2. All authority with regard to trying an impeachment rests with the Senate. The presiding judge can be overruled at any point on any question by a simple majority of the Senators present.

              The Senate is not the prosecution! It is simply the body that has final authority over any part of the trial process and verdict.

              You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about.

              1. Where is that in the Constitution? Let me tell you, Nowhere! The Senate needs to be totally unbiased and the
                Senator’s are “expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.” Federalist #65 Hamilton, since I know you genius’s love to quote Federalist #65 out of context to misconstrue Hamilton’s meaning to support you interpretations.

                  1. Wow, it took your genius to determine that. No one is saying that the Federalist Papers are law. The Federalists Papers are an analysis of historical governing systems and what they did in the Constitutional Convention to form a more robust and superior Governing system for their Union.

                    Everything they say they did in the Federalist Papers is formally established in the Constitution.

                    And yes, they included all counter arguments of their time, including the anti Federalist.

              2. The Chief Justice presides.

                Senate democrats prosecute and Senate republicans defend.

                The Senate is the jury.

                Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer et al. are guilty of jury tampering.

                    1. I have read them all and I have audio copies that I play repetitively. I don’t just pick and choose what I want out of context to prove anything.

                      Read Federalist #10 and Madison tells you what they did to control factions in their government! And yes, all parties are factions no matter their size.

                      “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”, Federalist #’s, 9 & 10 by Hamilton and Madison Respectively!

            3. Just think a minute instead of cherry picking. ‘Rights Not Granted’ That does give the Senate the authority to do what it says and does not grant that righ to anyone else. If that were the case it would have been written that way. No where does it give the Judicial branch the rights you claim or even hint at such rights. Same with Pelosi gettinig to vote on a treaty between Canada, Mexico and the United States. Treaties are the province of the Senate.

    2. “The GOP does not Control the Senate, because the Parties are not assembled in the Senate, the States are, and the Parties are not apportioned any Suffrage to Participate in the Decision Making of the Senate, the States are, this is a decision to remove a representative of the States’ Union, and the States as the Union have all the Authority to remove any one from their Executive Departments who does not subordinate themselves to the decisions made by their Union as they are assembled in Congress, and their Supreme Government Authority as they Union.”
      ******************

      1. Actually they are assembled in the Senate as they are the ones conducting the trial. Same as the Reps were assembled to conduct their dog and pony circus in the House of Representatives

    1. delay in sending the articles is the height of stupidity

      this is descending into absurdity

      1. this is descending into absurdity

        Considering the depth of the hole Democrats have been digging, expect the absurdity to continue descending for quite some time.

          1. Good analogy. But one could argue that opening move was initiating the impeachment inquiry on a hearsay whistleblower complaint, not expecting the President would release the call transcript. Checkmate!

            1. yeah that was Trump’s ace card and he played it fast. super smart move.

              the Democrats must be feeling like you do at blackjack when you got two face cards and the dealer gets blackjack. well it felt like a great hand at first…..

  8. The Congress has become a Circus without a tent…..
    Everyone wants to perform, but “we the people” are tired of the mediocre unconstitutional performances!

  9. While the theater show is going on…”It sounds like a James Bond movie, but it really happened. Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks journalists and every single lawyer, reporter, politician, artist and physician who visited the founder of WikiLeaks at the Ecuadorian embassy over the last seven years was subjected to systematic espionage. Meetings and conversations were recorded and filmed, and all the information was sent to US intelligence” Today is a hearing about how US “intelligence” officials (which intensified this “work” under Trump, took all the info on Assange, his lawyers, doctors, etc.
    (find article written by STEFANIA MAURIZI)

    No rule of law. That is our nation right now.

    Resistance isn’t about loving or hating Trump. It is about demanding the rule of law in our own nation.

    1. that’s the blessed DEEP STATE in action not Trump

      he can’t even do his business without the CIA spying on him and trying to bring him down

      how’s he supposed to slow down the deluge of anger from Spookdom at Assange?

      Just tell them to lay off? Clearly they don’t think he’s giving orders they need to follow

  10. Sadly we’ve reached a place of division so deep our collective and individual intellectual abilities have been drowned by seas of emotions. The leaders on both sides have not exhibited leadership which could help diminish the waves which carry a dangerous tsunami across our shores from coast to coast.
    Hatred of one man and his supporters and lust for power, I believe, have spearheaded an attempt to change, not only our Constitution, but our Republic into a socialist society, which will mute any dissenting voice. This is evident in our institutions of higher learning curriculums.
    Any conservative today is in danger of extinction tomorrow. That, unfortunately, is where we are today. Fear should not be our harbinger on either side. Where is our Winston Churchill?

  11. These have to be the most interesting and exciting times for constitutional review and debate, except for the drafting of the Constitution and maybe the Civil War action.

    Had another Republican become the president, it seems likely that little would be different in regards to the Russian Collusion investigation and this impeachment, but any other of the Republicans would have probably caved in long ago and the VP or the Speaker would then be heading up the Executive. Trump is far from the ideal president with an ego that would make Narcissus envious, but he is probably the best for fighting these unusual challenges to the office.

    It is so hard to judge events objectively in the moment absent of any emotion, but in future years we may learn that Trump was likely the right person to defend the presidency at a time of strong political opposition and a largely biased media in support of that political opposition.

    1. Your first paragraph, about constitutional review and debate, displays considerable ignorance. There has been no constitutional review and debate. There has been partisan political hackery and diatribe.

    2. it is an interesting time we live in

      Trump’s pride is, sometimes, a strength, as you surmise

  12. There’s a phrase well known in the military that describes this nonsense:

    Hurry up and wait.

    In the meantime, the country has checked out on impeachment and Durham/Barr will own the narrative that this President has been under attack, just like he has said all along.

    Well done Democrats.

      1. 🙂 The former is certainly a symptom of the latter.

        Pelosi holds in her possession 2 articles of impeachment:
        1. Abuse of Power
        2. Obstruction of Congress

        By refusing to transmit those articles over to the Senate, she is:
        1. Abusing her power
        2. Obstructing Congress

        Consider this; the Democrats have alleged the President withheld vital aid to Ukraine that put Ukrainian lives and our national security at risk, solely to benefit him personally in the 2020 election. President Trump is supposedly an ongoing threat to our democracy, etc. etc. etc. That threat is of such an urgent nature, that the House could not wait to challenge his assertion of executive privilege in the courts. And yet here we are, Pelosi withholding articles of impeachment in an effort to extort concessions out of McConnell. President Zelensky and the rest of the world watching have got to be wondering if the Democrats have lost their collective minds.

        1. I should have added, Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues are obviously doing all of this to personally benefit them in the 2020 election.

          So there’s that.

          1. Olly, absolutely

            the ridiculousness of this is shocking.

            they were in a huge hurry and now they’re not

          1. Assuming you’re talking about Trump; the allegation of abuse of power is during his presidency and to aid his reelection.

                1. You are correct. I plead guilty to to thinking 2016 when it clearly stated 2020 however. That led me to a real error.

                  Consider this; the Democrats have alleged the President withheld vital aid to Ukraine that put Ukrainian lives and our national security at risk, solely to benefit him personally in the 2020 election. President Trump is supposedly an ongoing threat to our democracy,

                  Check the last word. We are a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Never been one it was rejected by the founders nine times. using Madison’s Journal of Proceedings as a source.

                  However our Constitutional Repubic does use a few parts of the Democratic system the strongest of which is the individual vote of the self governing citizen.

                  In that way they were able to not throw the baby out with the bath water without having to carry the not so useful parts of that system.
                  We are in fact under a system which has the ability to work at mulltiple levels for two precise reasons. One the individuals ability to vote geo politically with the highest reach being the only two federal offices and the second checks and balances which has been flawed because of the 17th.

                  But it is a legal amendment which is which along with the Constitutional terms of office created a monster as the states are not allowed to use ‘recall’ even though Senators and Representatives are or maybe were nothing more than delegates to the federal congregation.

                  The fix is to redo the 17th to make ‘recall’ not term limits the instrument of removal and that would not require an amendment but a ‘revisit’ of the Supreme Court to enforce the portion that lets them control their own delegates

                  A second part might be the States paying the primary salary while he feds paid the costs when the delegates were in session in DC.

                  But I did misread the dates and that was my fault,.

    2. There is a term often use in the military that is far more appropriately descriptive not only of the current debacle but the country as a “hole” (pun intended).
      FUBAR!

  13. The Speaker of the House stated at a news conference that the President has been impeached. The articles of impeachment and the vote results have been read by the House on national TV. Hasn’t the articles of impeachment been “transmitted” electronically? Why does the Senate need to wait for a document to be delivered? Couldn’t the Senate simply state that the House’s role in impeaching the President has concluded, the impeachment articles have been “transmitted” and just go forward set a date for the trial on its own?

    1. Anonymous – since all the “rules” have changed, McConnell could start the trial in the Senate on Jan. 6 and see who shows up.

  14. If it’s as serious and bad as those quoted comments indicate, seems like Pelosi should rush the articles over to the Senate as quickly as possible. There’s not a moment to waste. /sarc.

  15. Tuesday, November 3, 2020: Trump wins re-election with 400+ electoral votes. The Republican Party wins control of the House and strengthens their Senate majority.

    By Christmas 2023 President Trump will have selected 2 more replacement US Supreme Court justices, and when he leaves office in January 2025 the US Supreme Court will have overturned Roe v. Wade. With President Trump’s nomination and Senate approval of the majority of lower Federal court judges, Trump will have changed the political perspective of the Federal courts for the next 30 years.

    The Democrats have only themselves to blame.

  16. thanks JT….for pointing out that both groups should shut up ….and there’s a majority of lawyers in the senate? Should they recuse themselves if they’ve made statement of that natrure

  17. I suggest you keep a tally (with references) that have made statements that show that they have already made judgement. It would be interesting to see what senators have not made any statements either way, if any.

  18. Justice Ginsberg has posited that anyone who prejudges should be eliminated as a juror.

  19. Point taken. So put Trump up for testimony. Mulvaney, Bolton and Buff Pompeo. Hunter Biden? Sure! Put Ivanka up next. Clear the decks. Could happen in a week. Bolton will definitely need a whole day for himself to amp up the proper amount of drama. Bring Rod Serling back from the dead for narration purposes. Guaranteed, Pompeo has a Code Red moment. Awesome thing is, Trump wants this. He’s conveniently forgetting that when perjury charges hang over him he always caves. Good times. Let’s get this party started.

    1. “Good times.”

      Not really. Quite the opposite. The decision to impeach means bad times in the future. The use of impeachment to void an election or to push policy is not in the interests of the American people. When the Democrats voted for impeachment one should assume they had the evidence to convict. That is the job of the Senate but the evidence to convict doesn’t exist.

    2. Let’s get this party started.

      At this point, there is not enough adrenaline or defibrillators on the planet to stop the Democrat party from joining Epstein.

  20. I’m beginning to think that Pelosi is never going to release the articles as they stand. There is no point since they will fail.

    Suppose Trump continues to do things that are inappropriate?
    The House could add more articles. At some point the pile of articles may get to be big enough that it won’t fail.
    Or
    The possibility of that outcome may get Trump to behave a little better

    1. ha ha ha now it’s degenerated to inappropriate? THey can add all they want but with idiot trash like that they can’t get around the six magic words “to the best of my ability” But saying such trash is sufficient proof to indict the entire left.

Comments are closed.