Posted on Dec 14, 2019
Hannity exclusive: McConnell says 'zero chance' Trump is removed, 'one or two Democrats' could...
1.24K
57
45
5
5
0
Is there any way that anyone can make the argument that the Senate trial (if it happens) will be fair and impartial? I'm all ears, but when the Senate Majority leader has already pre-determined the outcome, without even looking at any evidence or holding, you know, the actual trial - what is the argument that this will be anything but a farce in the Senate?
By all means argue that the House Impeachment hearings were biased or unfair or didn't produce anything - it's 100% irrelevant to the duty and integrity of the Senate Trial. That's all on the Senate - and right now, the Senate Majority Leader is just saying that he has no intention of allowing the Senate to do it's Constitutional duty to hold an actual trial for impeachment.
No matter how you slice it, that's wrong.
Note: I'm not saying they should convict, I'm just saying they should actually hold a legitimate trial without a predetermined verdict.
By all means argue that the House Impeachment hearings were biased or unfair or didn't produce anything - it's 100% irrelevant to the duty and integrity of the Senate Trial. That's all on the Senate - and right now, the Senate Majority Leader is just saying that he has no intention of allowing the Senate to do it's Constitutional duty to hold an actual trial for impeachment.
No matter how you slice it, that's wrong.
Note: I'm not saying they should convict, I'm just saying they should actually hold a legitimate trial without a predetermined verdict.
Hannity exclusive: McConnell says 'zero chance' Trump is removed, 'one or two Democrats' could...
Posted from foxnews.com
Donald Trump
United States Senate
Government
Edited 5 y ago
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 9
3
3
0
McConnell is one juror out of 100.
Just because he is saying something we all know is true doesn't make anything a farce.
FWIW the whole thing is a farce.
Wait and see what happens.
Just because he is saying something we all know is true doesn't make anything a farce.
FWIW the whole thing is a farce.
Wait and see what happens.
(3)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski that is not how it works sir.
We've heard from darn near all of the Senators what their prejudgment was.
You never know, maybe something will come up that moves the needle, but I think it is a safe bet that there are MAYBE 5 Senators whose mind isn't made up already
We've heard from darn near all of the Senators what their prejudgment was.
You never know, maybe something will come up that moves the needle, but I think it is a safe bet that there are MAYBE 5 Senators whose mind isn't made up already
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski the house can hold off if they wanted. With what has been said, I might wait on the vote if I was Pelosi.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see) - I think they should too. Without certain witnesses, I think this case is just not there.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
CJ Roberts is just the umpire. As long as Reps have 51 votes (or a super majority in some cases, 2/3 to convict and 60 on procedural matters i.e. Reid Rule) they control the presentation. I read an article that raised a scenario of Reps voting to table the articles. CJ could inquire if they wish to do that without any presentation of evidence, but they can say that they do and support it with a majority vote. Then it is case closed, and the Dems only recourse is to appeal to SCOTUS after the trial, where their 9 votes are determinative. The impeachment trial is closed however. Could be the shortest impeachment trial ever. I don't think McConnell should say this though, as it adds to bias for further proceedings, should they occur. If a jury foreman made this statement in a criminal proceeding it would not go over well, and could lead to removal from the case for bias, or grounds for mistrial. Lawyers what say ye?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Just as fair as the house, this is all a political stunt anyway by both parties now.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Tell me you don't think that the house should actually hold a far and impartial impeachment based on more than what they have now. This whole thing is a political stunt because they are afraid they can't beat him in 2020.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SSG (Join to see) - I DO think the House should. But, that process is done. Now, I want the Senate to do the right thing - isn't that what we should all want?
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SGT John S. - It's clearly not unquestionable - that's the nice things about separating powers. Now, if the House passed a resolution to dissolve the Constitution, is it valid? Yes. Article 5 of the Constitution gives the power to either chamber of Congress to propose Amendments - and dissolution of the Constitution should fall under that power.
Contrary to popular belief, not all of the Founders thought that the Constitution the wrote, even with the ability to be amended, was the be all and end off of governance. They knew they were humans who were flawed and who were just doing their best. Jefferson would have liked to have had the Constitution rewritten every generation (18 years) because he didn't believe that the laws of the prior generation should be forced on the citizens of the next. Maybe if we'd listened to him then, we'd have a populace that was less concerned about keeping things the way they are and more concerned about progress and development. We took the lazy way out. But, I digress.
What applicable due process do you feel was violated?
And no, I don't think either the Republicans OR Democrats are impartial. And haven't been for... ever? As it stands, we have a process in place - subverting that process in the Senate is just as wrong as the perceived unfairness of the House hearings. Two wrongs don't make a right, they just make things more wrong. I'd like to say I'm waiting for SOMEONE in office to do the right thing for a change... but, I think I'm close to the point of giving up that hope.
Contrary to popular belief, not all of the Founders thought that the Constitution the wrote, even with the ability to be amended, was the be all and end off of governance. They knew they were humans who were flawed and who were just doing their best. Jefferson would have liked to have had the Constitution rewritten every generation (18 years) because he didn't believe that the laws of the prior generation should be forced on the citizens of the next. Maybe if we'd listened to him then, we'd have a populace that was less concerned about keeping things the way they are and more concerned about progress and development. We took the lazy way out. But, I digress.
What applicable due process do you feel was violated?
And no, I don't think either the Republicans OR Democrats are impartial. And haven't been for... ever? As it stands, we have a process in place - subverting that process in the Senate is just as wrong as the perceived unfairness of the House hearings. Two wrongs don't make a right, they just make things more wrong. I'd like to say I'm waiting for SOMEONE in office to do the right thing for a change... but, I think I'm close to the point of giving up that hope.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SGT John S. - The House CAN pass resolutions, but you're right, it cannot dissolve the Constitution via one. My whole point was that the bicameral system protects us from singular abuses of power by one side or the other.
POTUS was invited MULTIPLE times to come testify and present evidence - he chose to not do that and chose, instead, to prevent others with information from testifying.
Also, who did the House refuse to allow to bring testimony?
POTUS was invited MULTIPLE times to come testify and present evidence - he chose to not do that and chose, instead, to prevent others with information from testifying.
Also, who did the House refuse to allow to bring testimony?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google