At the end of its first day of argument, the Senate trial was thrown into chaos when a “juror” stood up like a scene out of Perry Mason to contest the veracity statements made by “prosecutors.” That moment came as the Senate was preparing to end for the day and Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah) jumped to his feet to object that a quote by House manager Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) was false. Lee should know. They were purportedly his words. After a frenzy on the floor and a delay of proceedings, lead House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md) announced that it would withdraw Cicilline’s statements and that “this is much ado about nothing, because it’s not critical in anyway to our case.” In reality, it had much to do about the manager’s case and highlights a glaring problem in its case. The House has elected to try this case of incitement of insurrection largely on circumstantial evidence and using media reports rather than witness testimony. It is trial by innuendo and implication rather than direct evidence of what Trump knew and intended on January 6th.
Raskin added that “So we’re happy to withdraw it on the grounds that it is not true and we are going to withdraw it this evening without any prejudice to the ability to resubmit if possible and then we could debate it if we need it.” It is not clear if the House will contest Lee’s point further on the second day of argument. However, such problems arise when you chose to litigate a case based on news reports as opposed to actual testimony.
Lee was aggrieved by Cicilline quoting him as to what Trump said in a conversation with Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) on Jan. 6. Trump mistakenly called Lee, who handed over the phone to his colleague. Here is what Cicilline said in part: “Sen. Lee described it …Sen. Lee then confirmed that he stood by as Sen. Tuberville and President Trump spoke on the phone. And on that call, Donald Trump reportedly asked Sen. Tuberville to make additional objections to the certification process.”
That does not appear to true if the suggestion is that Lee confirmed that content of the call in the article. The source for the House managers was a story in Deseret News that only describes the miscall and awkward moment before Lee grabbed back his phone. Tuberville stated that he did not recall much of the brief call, but the article also states that Lee told the newspaper that when “Lee said when he later asked Tuberville about the conversation, he got the impression that Trump didn’t know about the chaos going on in the Senate chamber.” The House managers left out that part which directly contradicts its narrative that Trump knew about the riot and was relishing it as he was calling to further delay the electoral certification. If true, the House’s timeline argument would lose coherence, if not collapse entirely. The House repeatedly argued that Trump wanted the riot and then used its to delay the proceedings. Yet, this call occurred “shortly after 2 pm” and, according to Lee, Trump did not appear to the senator to be aware of the extent of the chaos. A few minutes later, at 2:38, Trump tweets, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
The main problem with the Lee objection however is that it highlights what is missing in the House case: witness testimony. I have been a critic of the House for using what I called a “snap impeachment” without even one day of hearings, investigation, or a formal opportunity for the President to respond. It could have easily held a couple days of impeachment and still impeached Trump before he left office. The House had from Jan. 6th to Jan. 20th to do so. However, what is even more disturbing is what came next. Nothing at all. the House had weeks to call witnesses to lock in their testimony and create the public record missing in its impeachment. As with the first impeachment, it rushed through the vote as an urgent matter and then did nothing. It did not send the article to the Senate and it did not call witnesses before any committees. Even if the snap impeachment were justified, the failure to create a record after the vote was not.
The House knew that it would be difficult to get witnesses in the Senate. After all, such witnesses were denied in the first trial and even with Clinton (with the Republicans in control) only a couple of depositions were allowed by the Senate.
In the meantime, former officials were giving public interviews on what Trump said and did during these critical hours. They clearly could be called to testify since they were already speaking publicly. This includes witnesses who could speak to the request for National Guard support like former Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller and his two closest aides, Kashyap “Kash” Patel and Ezra Cohen, and U.S. Capitol Police chief Yogananda D. Pittman. (Pittman gave non-public testimony on the riot itself). There is at least a dozen such officials who could have been called to lock in their testimony and give direct testimony on the underlying facts. The House could also have asked for confirmation of statements like those attributed to Senators Tuberville and Lee. Yet, the House let weeks go by without calling these witnesses in the House. Why?
It is honestly not clear to me why the House managers do not want to make a more solid and conventional case for incitement when these witnesses are available to remove doubts on these questions. With acquittal extremely likely, one would think that the House would seek hard testimony to force senators to reconsider their positions.
Instead, the House managers have been referencing media reports of what witnesses have said, including unidentified “senior aides.” Much of the first day repeated an account that Trump was delighted by the scenes of rioting while managers like Cicilline omitted statements in such articles that Trump might not have been fully aware of the situation until shortly before his 2:30 tweet telling people to stay peaceful and obey the police.
In reality, most of us have little idea of what Trump knew or how he was reacting at these critical moments. Such evidence is critical to the case before the Senate. Trump was not impeached for negligence. He was impeached for inciting an actual insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Yet, the House seems not only uninterested but willfully blind to the existence of witnesses who could supply that evidence. If Trump actively delayed the deployment of National Guard troops or celebrated the riot, it would have direct bearing on the case. Indeed, that is why the House managers keep referring to news reports that he seemed pleased by the scenes. Yet, it could have confirmed these reports by calling these witnesses rather than rely on anonymous sources in media reports.
The Lee kerfuffle was damaging not because it forced the House managers to withdraw Cicilline’s words. It was damaging because it highlights what is not in the House case. It has “much to do” with the credibility of the House case. Senators could conclude that the decision to rely on media reports rather than witnesses leaves the case inclusive and speculative on Trump’s state of mind or purpose. We know the public case against Trump, but not whether a legal case can be made against him. Or, to paraphrase Shakespeare, “we know what [the case is], but know not what [the case] may be” with direct evidence.
This column appeared on Fox.com.
They have pretty strong evidence. Video evidence. Trump’s own words. Video of the attack.
Who do you want to hear from that will tell you more than that? Trump refused to testify. Who else would you want to hear from? We saw it all on TV. Sure, there were people sitting next to Trump that day, but they are not going to say anything except a whole lot of “I don’t recall.”
Junk Junk:
“They have pretty strong evidence. Video evidence. Trump’s own words. Video of the attack.”
*********************
With that kind of propaganda-esque, unchallenged “evidence” they couldn’t convict a jaywalker of walking, being near a street or intent to cross. If I were you, I’d stick to something more your judging style. Like say, picking the pie contest winner (cherry always has the inside track) or deciding beautiful baby competitions (look for the cheeks). You’d do well with pageants, too! Twirl, twirl … tell us how you’d achieve world peace, deary?
(cherry always has the inside track) or deciding beautiful baby competitions (look for the cheeks)
Nope. Blueberry. Apple’s the best if the baker has the knack (as did my mother). They usually do not.
EDITED film is NOT valid evidence. You are delusional.
The Democrats SET THE STANDARD for this type of speech and conduct by their promoting of looting, burning, physically assaulting, and anti semitic actions by their failure to sanction officials as far back as Omar – while the Republicans were taking away committee assignments during that time.
Trump’s speech and conduct was no worse than Schumer at the Supreme Court, Maxine Waters instructions to accost and assault, Kamallah Harris’s instructions to loot and burn, Joe Biden’s threat of physical assault, and Ilan Omar’s anti semitic remarks.
Trump has not exceeded the DEMOCRAT SET STANDARD.
Democrats: YOU BROKE IT YOU OWN IT.
Arty:
Peach man, myself. I just noticed the damn cherry latticed pies seemed to win very time. Blueberry works, too. Honestly never had a really good apple pie except perhaps a French apple one.
From what I understand not a single person died prior to Trump telling everyone to go home,
You understand wrong.
Ashli Babbitt was killed at 2:45pm –
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/
Trump didn’t tell people to go home until 6:01pm –
https://www.thetrumparchive.com/
I don’t know what time Benjamin Philips, Kevin Greeson, and Rosanne Boyland died. Do you?
Your source on Trump’s remarks is WRONG. Try Google.
The media was already reporting Trump’s remarks at 4:32 and he had tweeted “go home” significantly before that.
Cancel reply
And if you did your research, you would find that no one died from the riot except an unarmed Trump supporter who was shot by a Capitol policeman. 2 others had a heart attack, one died of a stroke, and they don’t know why the policeman died, except no one is admitting that it was caused by a fire extinguisher except the FAKE NEWS MEDIA.
One of the people who died, Roseanne Boyland, was trampled by other protesters.
She was a Trump supporter whose death is attributable to the gross mismanagement of the crowd by the Capitol police and the negligence of Nancy Pelosi who was informed of the possibilities ahead of time and did nothing. And there is no confirmation that she was trampled to death.
Actual evidence of this ?
We have heard numerous claims – they have all thus far proved false.
All the Video of Boyland is “outside the Capital” – neither she nor those with her were Tresspassing.
Assuming that the cause of death is being Trampled, this would still be completely different from claims.
People are killed this way at sporting events, and other protests.
Boyland was not beaten by police or protestors, her death is a typical death that occurs in crowds.
It is unfortunate. Their MIGHT even be some small culpability on the part of those who trampled her – if that is what happened.
But it is not a death as a result of deliberate violence.
Nor is it a death as a result of breaking into the capital.
Evidence of what ? Free speech ?
Protests against a lawless government ?
The murder by police of an inocent protestor?
Why was the capital locked ?
Are you going to be OK if the Republicans lock down the US capitals or state capitrals as the means to thwart democrats from protesting in the future ?
Remember everything that you do now, will become the new norm.
And it will ultimately be used against you too.
Power is ephemeral.
Your character is determined by what you do when you have it.
Your failing that test.
The US is becoming a banana republic.
We can not Trust our elections, or our courts.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2015/03/Stalin-elections.jpg
The entire sham is much to do about harassment rather than conviction. They knew the outcome before they started. It is all a big circus.
Phyllis, your moral blindness and inability to sort sheep from goats – show us the rioters with the Biden ballcaps or AOC and flags trying to disrupt our government – are duly noted.
Hey, if you voted for Trump twice, we already know you lack even basic abilities for judging the character of fellow humans.
AnonJF your cerebral vacuousness is legend and is matched only by that of the Heinrich Himmler wannabes leading Twitter and Facebook.
Are you related to Zuckerberg?, Dorsey?, Himmler? Just saying 😉
I don’t judge my fellow humans. But if you talk like you write I understand your confusion.
You and your leaders promoted riots, looting, and burning, and even knocking down the Supreme Court’s doors and the White House.
Democrats SET THE STANDARD and Trump did nothing worse than the DEMOCRATS.
YOU BROKE IT. YOU OWN IT.
Obviously you don’t Phyllis, or are so bad at it you might as well not.
Here’s a tip: The guy who keeps telling you how great he is – “only I can…..” – , claims credit for things he had nothing to do with, and doesn’t own up to any mistakes, even including weather forecasts? Don’t vote for him.
Here is a tip, JF. God made us all but not all the same. We are diverse with many cultures and aspirations. We don’t live in a goldfish bowl where everyone looks and thinks the same. I defend your rights to say whatever you want. I see you don’t intend to defend mine. It’s the difference between freedom and communism.
Well stated! These Neo Marxists are such a boorish lot… they seek but they do not find, they ask but they are rejected, they knock but the door does not open…
Leaving history to judge Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and AnonJF as 21 century successors to the Nazi and Neo Marxist propaganda machines of WWII 😉
Yes, Someone, I agree. The one thing they don’t acknowledge is every time their ideology has raised its ugly head in America, their cause to change us all has failed.
Of course they tried to disrupt our government. How many examples do you need ?
The Schumer protests at the Supreme Court ?
The Kavanaugh protests where they went confronted Senators in the capital halls, elevators, offices and on the floor to intimidate them to change their votes ?
The “protestors” who burned down a police station in Minneapolis ? Or police cars all over the country – sometimes with officers in them ?
Or the “protestors” who repeatedly tried to burn the federal courthouse in Portland ?
Or the “protestors” who bombed the police station in Seatlle forcing the police to abandon it ?
Or the 3 week occupation of the Wisconsin Capital by Democrats ?
These and many more were ALL efforts to disrupt government.
Merely trying to disrupt government is neither a crime nor wrong. If it were we would have to arrest half the country for their conduct in the last 4 years.
But for hypocracy the left would have no standards at all.
If you think that 75M people in this country lack character – YOU are the problem.
The impeachment managers have done an outstanding job so far. I can’t wait for the part where they start arguing the actual charge in the impeachment document. Swoon!
Much ado about a lot. I won’t vote for a senator who voted to acquit.
You finally got something serious to say? Wow. Go smoke another bowl and back to rhyming.
I will not vote for anyone who voted in any supportive of either of these two farces.
Further I expect that come 2022 when the GOP likely takes control of the House that the house keeps the Senate busy all through the next 2 years with these faux impeachments for free speech.
Further I want to see Biden impeached repeatedly
as well as Obama and Clinton for similar remarks.
And for threatening foreign leaders for personal benefit.
If we are going to make impeachment meaningless – then lets go all it.
At the very least the rest of us will be safe while our legislators are tied up with stupid hearings.
Are you prepared to impeach John Adam’s ? Thomas Jefferson ? George Washington ?
What about the entire Democratic party ?
The recent Time article makes clear that the threat of political violence by Antifa, BLM was a deliberae part of the strategy to coerce governors, congressmen and courts to go along with illegtimate fiat changes to election laws often violating state constitutions.
You need not agree with me – or Time to grasp that is more significant if true than anything democrats are alleging.
This should be the message to Democrats who want Trump impeached for his speech on January 6.
The same conduct is ok for Democrats but not ok for Trump or Republicans.
If Trump’s conduct was bad, all of those I pointed out would be sanctioned or disqualified. None are. None have even had proceedings brought against them. 14th Amendment = equal protection.
The Democrats said the conduct was not bad during the riots and the Kavanaugh hearings before. The DEMOCRATS SET THE STANDARD.
Therefore, Trump’s conduct was also within acceptable limits.
The Democrat position.is therefore a hoax.
The Democrats BROKE IT. THEY OWN IT.
It’s time for the Democrats to stand up like a man and admit it instead of acting like Wussies.
We need to get this message out to everyone to use.
“The same conduct is ok for Democrats but not ok for Trump or Republicans.”
Nope. If a Democratic office holder ever incites insurrection, I’ll want him or her impeached too.
Then you must impeach Schumer and Pelosi NOW.
The Chief Justice’s non-participation is one thing: a conversation unto itself. What astounds me utterly is that the entire Supreme Court is ceding to the Legislative branch an area that is strictly and solely their purview: Determining constitutionality. In effect, their inaction is ardently arguing that there is no basis or need whatsoever for their third branch. If Congress can simply vote that they **think** something is Constitutional, why the heck do we even need judicial review at all? For any matter??
In essence, SCOTUS is declaring themselves to be useless, void, and without any purpose whatsoever, beyond simply being legacy-tenants in some old building that isn’t needed any more. Maybe we’ll jut keep the building for its architecture.
There have always been squabbles between the Executive and Legislative branches. However, if SCOTUS is this dispassionate about their sole role–judicial consideration of constitutionality–how far are we from the elimination of Article III courts entirely. Following that argument certainly leads to an almighty Legislative branch that can endlessly lord over the Executive and remove them at will, simply by declaring that their proceedings and judgments are constitutional. What the heck would “constitutional” even mean, other than whatever Congress decides and says it is?
What I especially don’t understand is **WHY** the other two branches are not fighting this direct (and, seemingly, intentional) assault against their very existence. I certainly understand why the Legislative is carrying it out: sheer greed for power.
A republic, if you can keep it, indeed.
Is a “trial” based upon innuendo and implication a “trial” at all? I suggest it is really a made for TV drama that will eventually be cancelled.
This show trial is moot.
This show trial is an unconstitutional farce.
– Only “THE” president, not a former president, may be impeached and convicted.
– The Chief Justice is not presiding.
Democrats in Congress and RINOs in the Senate are committing an unconstitutional and illegal act in violation of fundamental law.
The judicial branch and Supreme Court are derelict and negligent and guilty of usurpation by omission.
America is no longer a society of laws.
America is lawless.
Turley: the more you use your credentials to defend Trump, the further away from respectability and integrity you go. Trump is NOT worth it. You think that somehow having people testify about things that are already on video and audio is somehow more valid than what we can see and hear. We all saw and heard it. Witnesses will add nothing to the truth that is on video and audio recordings. You attempt to enlarge the importance of Lee’s bullsh*t, which we all know is just a diversion from the seriousness of Trump’s outrageous behavior, and which we all know this is just red meat for the disciples. Trump’s lies are on record–his tweets, the lying about the only way he could lose the election would be with cheating, knowing that he had set a record for low approval ratings, knowing he was predicted to lose because the American people never approved of him–in 2016 or the years thereafter. He told the disciples to watch the polls, he claimed victory before the ballots were counted, and then went on the offense–60+ lawsuits that were found baseless, “Stop the Steal” rallies, endless tweets at all hours of the day and night preaching to his disciples that they were cheated, trying to bully Secretaries of State to falsify vote totals, trying to bully Pence into invalidating certified votes, and as a last-ditch effort, calling for a rally on January 6th, telling the faithful it would be “wild” and to “fight like hell” because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t have a country any more. The big picture is overwhelmingly persuasive, so Turley tries to parse out one little piece and magnify its importance.
You are watching a circus. Thank God that Professor Turvey is trying so hard to make more people understand the law and how it is to be used.
Trump should receive the same fair treatment Obama received from the GOP. Stealing about 100 federal judges and US Supreme Court pick from Obama. Using no evidence at all, to defame Obama like (a radical Baptist, then a radical Muslim, then his father was a Kenyan Witch Doctor). How about “Obama will take our guns away”, there more gun rights when Obama left office than during the Bush Administration.
Trump should receive that same “fair” treatment as Obama received. At least there is some evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing.
Perhaps there is a very simple reason why the Democrats are not offering witnesses…..that there are NONE that can attest to the allegations being made by the Democrats.
News Articles can allege anything they care and far too often do create imaginary. “anonymous” sources or “high level Administration Officials” and run the article with no real basis in truth.
We saw that for four years and still do with Russia Collusion don’t we.
The Democrats House of Cards is fixing to come tumbling down yet again as they cannot build a case out of mystical accounts and make them true by waving their hands around and pouring out the tears and mumbling in trembling voices.
That Dog just won’t hunt as we say down South.
“Perhaps there is a very simple reason why the Democrats are not offering witnesses”
The reason is that they can’t bring witnesses without consent from the Senate. Just like they couldn’t in the previous impeachment trial.
Tell your Senators that you want witnesses to be questioned.
Democrats control the Senate.
Democrats control the house.
If there are no witnesses – it is because democrats do not want witnesses.
Another, BUT…BUT…BUT…. from Turley to keep his right-wing alternate universe going for his “base”. Sad and pathetic that Turley will go down in history as a enabler and apologist for a two time impeached dishonored con-man that operated with very provable false claims and lies. So Turley does what Turley does…BUT…BUT…BUT.
I would say Turley’s remarks are damning. But they are not.
You can not damn further something that is already damnable.
As Cruz noted this is all
“It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
The core of this impeachment as well as the last is feelings over facts in the most biased of ways.
“Sticks and Stones” The fact remains that this impeachment is a total sham initiated for the sole purpose of persecuting not prosecuting Trump. Because it is a partisan show, there is no way the democrats will let the rules of evidence interfere. Leahy, as judge, has already declared Trump guilty. So what is the point, other than to replace Judge Roy Bean’s place in history.
The fact remains that this impeachment is a total sham initiated for the sole purpose of persecuting not prosecuting Trump.
I agree it’s a sham, but I don’t believe Trump is the ultimate target. Certainly any conservative politician that dares to become a threat to the establishment will be subject to the same impeachment gauntlet. This is merely the next move in their strategic plan to disenfranchise millions of conservatives by labeling all of them as domestic enemies. Of course you can’t allow insurrectionists the right to vote. They’re already enabling the disabling of our 1st amendment rights, they are already going after our 2nd amendment rights. I expect laws like civil asset forfeiture to further disable our 4th amendment rights, 5th amendment rights, forget about it. And of course if too many “insurrectionists” assemble to peacefully protest, can’t have that. Insurrection Act is waiting in the wings.
Impeachment is “political” issues like putting the voters-interests (within constitutional legal boundaries) above self-interests. The strictest legal bar is for criminal defendants (beyond a reasonable doubt), the next strictest is for civil defendants (preponderance of the evidence) and impeachment is even lower than that – dealing with integrity of a leader. Did he place voters, country and Constitution above his own self-interests?
Even the strictest legal bar to satisfy (criminal defendants) can be convicted using circumstantial evidence. One solution, both parties might support is a “21st Century Truth Commission on Unconstitutional Authoritarianism” – which opened the door for Trump’s abuses. Dick Cheney’s “Unitary Executive Theory” propagandized by right-wing talk radio hosts for decades laid the foundation for Trump to exploit.
Simply offer Bush torture attorneys and Bush torture doctors “immunity from criminal prosecution” in exchange for truth-telling that would mandate reforms. Start with Bush, or even the Richard Jewel case, and perform a 20 year discovery process. This solution creates reform without Trump serving prison time (as New York and Georgia prosecutors are getting ready to do). Even Trump voters would support this.
Ash: If anyone should be going to prison, it should be Obama, Biden and all the subsequent myermedoms of theirs as AG, FBI Dir, et als. For their attempted coup beginning in 2015 against DT. But you cyclopes can’t ascertain nor see that can you?
“It is honestly not clear to me why the House managers do not want to make a more solid and conventional case for incitement when these witnesses are available to remove doubts on these questions. With acquittal extremely likely, one would think that the House would seek hard testimony to force senators to reconsider their positions.”
It’s totally obvious to anyone who still can think for themselves. It’s because there were quite a few people in positions of authority who KNEW ahead of time that there were some bad actors (extreme right wing + extreme left wing) who planned to create quite a ruckus in the capitol. Yet all of these people who had the authority to do something about the security CHOSE not to. They are culpable for what happened. But they were thinking Big Picture–that this would be a perfect setup to use against Republicans and the citizenry later on to crack down on dissent under the guise of the supposed “ongoing” threat.
And, of course, the Democrats have shown that they have little curiosity about the lack of preparedness at the Capitol prior to the events of January 6. In fact, Nancy Pelosi has been dismissive of any inquiries into security issues. The Democrats were on inquiry notice – yet they did not seek adequate security prior to January 6. Hmmm!
Mr. Turley, what is the evidentiary standard that impeachment managers are legally obligated to uphold? Viewing impeachment proceedings through the lens of established judicial constructs—including rules of procedure, evidence, and standards of proof—should be undertaken with caution.
The Senate has not bound itself to any specific controlling set of evidentiary rules. Instead, the admissibility of evidence is primarily based on Senate precedent, with objections first ruled on by the Presiding Officer, but ultimately settled by a majority vote of the Senate.
Your failure to acknowledge the lack of any such evidentiary requirements demonstrates your partiality here. A fair critique might be to point out the failure of our government to impose such evidentiary standards (to avoid the political show we are now seeing), but this is not your goal here.
Let’s review. The Constitution speaks of impeaching a president — not a former president. But forget about that for a moment.
The Constitution says the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court SHALL preside. It doesn’t say he might preside. It doesn’t say he can choose whether or not to preside. It says he SHALL preside.
But the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS doesn’t want anything to do with this. And that should be all you need to know about whether or not this proceeding violates the Constitution.
So, who is presiding? A senator who for the last four years has publicly said that the president is guilty — of being Donald Trump. A senator who, in the first unsuccessful impeachment, voted to convict Donald Trump.
Imagine you are sued by your neighbor. Imagine when you get to court and the bailiff says, “All Rise” the person who walks in wearing the black robe is the same person who sued you.
What is particularly irritating is the number of Democrats running around quoting Alexander Hamilton, notwithstanding the fact that Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that THIS sort of impeachment is exactly what should NOT happen and if he had had his way during the constitutional convention debates there would be no House of Representatives.
“The Constitution says the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court SHALL preside. It doesn’t say he might preside. It doesn’t say he can choose whether or not to preside. It says he SHALL preside.”
It only says he “shall” preside over the impeachment trial of “the President.” Trump is not the President. Biden is the President. Roberts doesn’t have to preside.
The House is building it’s case on almost entirely on the already available tweets and videos of Trump speeches. Yes, some witnesses could fill in some details, but the evidence is openly available. I think this evidence is stronger then any witness statement.
It is important to make a comparison with the Illinoise House’s impeachment of Rod Blagojevich.
That was a slam dunk case. Even so, the House had called witnesses and examined evidence and debated.
No such thin g happened in the U.S. House this time.
“But you did Mr. [Cicilline] …”
Can’t let facts interfere with a good story.
I am so tired of the emotion, lying, and stupidity of the left.
They lie to us, but they also lie to themselves and to each other.
Going by the comments here from our resident Pinkos (Anonymous (the mendacious one), Molly, Natasha, etc), they like being lied to and then like repeating the lies.
Amen and Awomen
“This attack never would have happened but for Donald Trump.” — Madeleine Dean
“We never would have committed mass suicide but for the Hale- Bopp comet.” — Marshall Applewhite and the Heaven’s Gate cult
“I never would have shot all those people but for talking dog.” — David Berkowitz
Gotta love the logic!