(12-19-2019, 07:33 PM)GethN7 Wrote:(12-19-2019, 07:12 PM)robkelk Wrote: Has anybody checked whether Sen. McConnell is suffering from Alzheimer's?
He's saying that the current impeachment sets a precedent - despite not only having been present for Clinton's impeachment but having actually taken part in it.
I'd say it does.
This impeachment is being presented with even LESS going for it than Andrew Johnson's, where at least they could point to an actual law being broken (the Tenure of Office Act).
Which is why he had this response:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mcconnell-to-pelosi-you-can-keep-your-impeachment-articles/ar-BBYay39?li=BBnb7Kz
Pelosi threatened to withhold the articles of impeachment unless the Senate negotiates a deal in the Democrats favor, and Mitch, knowing they are asking for the unreasonable, told her no.
He further told her that if they have enough in the House they are willing to forward an impeachment proceeding to the Senate, it's not the Senate's job to make their case stronger, they will go with what the House presents and that's it.
Otherwise, the Senate is under no obligation (and they legally aren't) to make the impeachment proceeding any easier than the Constitution requires, and all it requires is the Senate to vote on what the House presents.
The House will be adjourning soon, so this simmers until January 7 of next year most likely, and if the Democrats have more on the table then, then so be it. Otherwise, the Senate said they will go with what the House presents and go with that.
Given that's how we did it with the last three presidents who ever got hit with impeachment, I'm in concurrence with Mitch on this.
Actually, the text of the impeachment articles is already available to the Senate, and everyone else. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democr...chment.pdf
What Pelosi is doing is not forwarding them to the Senate for the trial process to start until Mitch agrees to actually have a trial rather than a whitewash where he says, "Eh, I don't see anything wrong" and dismisses the whole thing. I.E. they actually call for additional witnesses that Trump forbade to testify to the House. If the Senate requests them and Trump still refuses to allow them to testify and prove his innocence to the first article (the whole Ukraine bit), assuming of course that their testimony actually would do so, then that is a defacto admission of guilt to the second article (obstruction of Congress).