Charles Schumer: The House Totally Made a Convincing Case for Impeachment But Also We Totally Need to Call New Witnesses to Make the Case for Impeachment

Loading

But oh, by the way, we also don’t want to hear from certain witnesses, like Hunter Biden.

From Epoch Times:



Schumer wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) over the weekend, telling his counterpart he wants Mulvaney to testify, along with Robert Blair, a senior adviser to Mulvaney; former National Security Advisor John Bolton; and Michael Duffey, associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget…..

Schumer said the Senate Democrats are open to hearing from additional witnesses, if they have direct knowledge of the Trump administration decisions that the opposition party is arguing constitute impeachable offenses.

Asked if he’d support calling some of the witnesses that Republicans want to testify, such as the person who filed the complaint against Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Schumer suggested he wouldn’t.

If Schumer wants to hear from these witnesses, why doesn’t he ask his fellow party hack Nancy Pelosi to call them, instead of insisting, impotently, that Mitch McConnell do what Nancy Pelosi refused to do?

Schumer was just on TV. In 1999, he adamantly refused any new witnesses, claiming they’d heard all they’d needed to hear from the House inquiry. Now he demands witnesses. He just claims the two situations are “completely opposite.” Meaning they’re trying to get someone of the opposite party.

He also babbled about why he needed new witnesses but why Trump’s proposed witnesses — such as Alexandria Chalupa and Hunter Biden — must not be called. He claimed that anyone claiming anything at all about Ukraine is pushing “conspiracy theories,” and he added, only Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele and CNN and MSNBC are permitted to do that.

Well he didn’t say that. But it was heavily implied.

Byron York commented on the Democrats’ “pre-trial trolling” strategy.

In coming weeks Senate Democrats will insist on hearing testimony House Democrats didn’t even try to hear. Might be a tough argument to make. House has made its case. Time for Senate to judge.

Democratic pre-trial trolling strategy already clear. We need new witnesses! What does Mitch McConnell have to hide? What are they afraid of? New witnesses, new evidence. Americans deserve the whole story. (Except for ‘distractions’ like Hunter Biden or whistleblower.)

Schumer and other veteran Democrats will totally flip their positions from 1999. Their argument will be: It’s OK because that was a Bad Impeachment and this is a Good Impeachment.

Meanwhile, mentally decrepit leftwing lawyer and deranged Trump Obsessive Lawrence Tribe is proposing… emergency bail-out procedures to just quit impeachment and stop the bleeding.

He wants the House to refuse to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, blaming McConnell or something.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Chuckie Sleeze and his ilk all need to retire to a mental institution to see if any of them are competent enough to further run anything

Curt, your lifted argument seems to have a rather profound confusion in an inquiry and a trial. One is not the other.

But maybe no one noticed so never mind, right? And even if so, just rinse and repeat.

Schumer wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) over the weekend, telling his counterpart he wants…

Stop right there, Chuckie. YOU get the same “fairness” your co-idiots in the House afforded Republicans. McConnell will tell you which (if any) witnesses you can call AND what questions you CANNOT ask. Also, when rules benefit the Republicans, they will be changed and put in place whenever it pleases the Republicans. THAT’S the precedent.

Democrats called their witnesses that made their “case”. They’ve documented all their “incriminating” opinions, assumptions, predictions, presumptions and rumors. Now let’s see the EVIDENCE.

Now, someone please let AJ know how this site works? He’s always too busy stalking to pay attention.

@Deplorable Me:

And don’t forget, if Chuck the Schmuck decides he wants to ask a question of a witness, as majority Senate leader McConnell will decide if the question is proper and if it is decided it is not, McConnell will instruct the witness to not answer the question. And no minority witness day. None, nil, zip.

@Ronald J. Ward:

your lifted argument seems to have a rather profound confusion in an inquiry and a trial. One is not the other.

That’s your ridiculous talking point? Yeah, rinse and repeat.

Payback is a bitch, and when new rules were invented for the inquiry due to Dem partisanship, in which they sought to lynch Trump on public opinions they seeded into under-experienced angry white men like you, I’m not sure there’s any reason the Senate should not take the authority they rightfully have.

As usual, accuse others of what you and your party just did on camera.

The Inquiry was part of the impeachment, and now your party can’t control the narrative, so they cry foul?

Pathetic.

The House is supposed to vote Wednesday. Watch; the vote will be pushed to Thursday; the anniversary of the date Clinton was impeached. This is mostly about settling an old score and putting an asterisk by Trump’s name. Democrats play games while the nation expects them to govern. They are inept.

Charles Schumer: The House Totally Made a Convincing Case for Impeachment But Also We Totally Need to Call New Witnesses to Make the Case for Impeachment

…because—in accordance with the Constitution—the House has conducted an impeachment investigation and hearing, which is the equivalent of a Grand Jury hearing. It will then decide whether to forward formal charges to the Senate, where an actual trial takes place.

Do witnesses normally testify at a trial or not?

For people who think they know everything, it’s surprising how often Trump supporters seem to be utterly clueless about the basics of how things work. They apparently want a trial without witness testimony.

@Greg: The case is not yet submitted to the Senate. Once the case is submitted then decisions on which witnesses put forward by the House would be relevant can be decided.
No new witnesses, you have your rock solid case.
The gossips and the professors.

@Greg: Like WHAT? That Trump cheated on the Army/Navy coin toss? In a Senate trial, there’ll be new evidence, alright; evidence Schiff worked hard to suppress. The evidence that proves that Trump had good reason to ask Zelensky to look into election interference and corruption, thus rendering “abuse of power” null and void and, at the same moment, showing what a corrupt liar Biden, Kerry and Pelosi are. They are ALL linked to Burisma.

The investigation of Hillary’s emails revealed Democrat corruption. The revelations of Obama’s spying has revealed Democrat corruption. The Mueller investigation revealed Democrat corruption. The Horowitz reports have revealed Democrat corruption. The Ukraine call has revealed Democrat corruption. Democrat corruption is so endemic that every false accusation made against Trump, the investigation turns up Democrat corruption. You should really stop digging.

But the Senate trial will go on, Schumer is not going to dictate how it is run and you and your Democrats will regret ever going down this impeachment hoax path.

@Deplorable Me: Bull, Schiff and Nadler made a case let them try it now no new witnesses or evidence. They wrote up he articles on what they have now if its impeachable in the house bring it exactly like it is to the Senate. It was so solid they didnt even need the WB.
Its perfect. Fact finding done.

Very often, after an indictment, like the House’s impeachment, a court might look at the case and decide not to proceed to full trial.
Sounds like Lindsey G. want to go that route.
Not sure about McConnell.
But letting Dems dictate is probably a non-starter.

My wimp of a Rep, Ben McAdams decided to vote for impeachment today, as a slow form of Hari Kari.
We, in Salt Lake City only voted him in because Mia Love was such a Never-Trumper.
Anyone else will be a welcome change.
Huge scandal broke today about the Mormon Church amassing over $100BILLION while not spending a penny on charity.
The WaPo has the original coverage but a You Tube by Lars P. Nielsen is out there. (Brother of whistleblower.)
The Church’s cover story is that they were saving that cash for after the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ.
Meanwhile local church buildings (stakes) go without plumbing repairs!
Widows also starve.

@Greg: When your party can manufacture whatever “facts” it wants to, everyone should be scared…and taking your party to jail.

It’s coming.

@Nan G: Very often, after an indictment, like the House’s impeachment, a court might look at the case and decide not to proceed to full trial.
Sounds like Lindsey G. want to go that route.
Not sure about McConnell.

Dem’s moan that “the facts” need to “com[e] out” before a full impeachment trial can occur is an invitation to a motion to dismiss the House’s articles of impeachment, once they arrive.
The House had its opportunity to develop the facts.
It could have taken whatever time it needed to do so.
If it didn’t bother to develop facts sufficient to support removing the president, the Senate shouldn’t waste its time on the matter.

Mitch McConnell reportedly is considering a motion to dismiss. According to this report, he hinted that the Senate will move to dismiss the articles of impeachment after opening argument. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/17/mcconnell-suggests-senate-will-move-to-dismiss-impeachment-after-opening-arguments/

But the House could take up impeachment again as soon as once the Senate drops the case.
Maybe that time they will do a better job if they can dredge up some facts and witnesses.

Who thinks they will?
I think they will drop it.

If the House wants more witnesses, they call them now before moving forward in the Senate.

No witnesses will be called once the vote goes to the Senate Hearing, from either side.

I know Trump will win in 2020, but what Dems are going to be surprised by is when the next Dem president takes office, over half the country won’t actually accept them as president.

Nice precedent they’ve set.

Rep Steny Hoyer “Democrats did not choose this impeachment. We did not wish for it.”
then was heckled
“Oh, come on!”

Others laughed and booed.
The hammer banging to bring the Republicans in order.

Steny defended his goofiness, by then saying they voted against it 3 other times.
Pelosi brought impeachment before the House 3 failed times before. I bet the time that Trump didnt like people kneeling for our flag was a toughie to get by for these patriots.

@kitt: Democrats have been clamoring for impeachment since their election manipulation and fraud failed to fulfill Hillary’s inevitable ascension into the Presidency. They’ve only lacked a pretext. They waited and waited and tried and tried to concoct one, but to no avail. They finally ran out of time and had to settle impeaching Trump for what Biden did.

Everyone from Pelosi to AOC has called Trump a traitor, racist, liar and anything else they can dream up but want people to believe they are impartial, fair legislators working with the facts, not political emotion. The only thing made clear in these proceedings is that Democrats are the worst examples of liars; immoral, unshamable liars that despise our Constitution.