Yes he is. You should hear him on individual rights.
McConnell has already admitted the jury is tainted. Where are the principles there?
She is asking for the identical process that Clinton had, nothing more.
Nope.
They want Trump favorable witnesses to defend the President. Witnesses like Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and Guliani.
This should be a slam dunk by McConnell. Make the libs look stupid by having them testify.
What is the issue?
1 Like
So this year theyāre going to run on impeachment. Because 2018 they swore they didnāt.
1 Like
Tainted? Like the House wasnāt? (D) ( R )
1 Like
No, she is the third most powerful politician in Washington and she is acting like it.
Like it or not, she has got game and she knows what she is doing.
A whole lot of desperate NancyāSplaininā going on right now. 
1 Like
Looks like sheās the first. So Queen.
I am actually really happy about this development.
So why the rush to impeach? Why not let the court do their job and do away with the second article? You canāt have it both ways.
Iāve never necessarily included you in the lib brush either. 
But, do tell?
Conservatives should be happy about this, right?
I mean, if she doesnāt transmit then the whole trial never happens, that is a good thing, right?
She can just put the articles in abeyance, no big deal. It just hurts Democrats. The GOP is the big winner here.
Right?
Or not?
Why wait for that stall tactic to move through the courts and be denied? There is zero chance that a court rules that none of those Trump supporting key witnesses can testify. Itās not happening. Every knows this to be true.
So we put this on the Senateā¦
Again why is this such an issue? 4-6 Trump supporting/appointed/employees should be able to exonerate Trump. Make Dems look stupidā¦ why isnāt McConnell jumping at the opportunity?
Interesting point. Does anyone want to refute it?
It makes sense that if the House abuses itās power in order to slander the President for a perceived electoral advantage, the president could appeal to the Senate as the higher court to overturn the Houseās impeachment decision, much like appealing lower court rulings and sentencing in legal cases.
I am more centrist, to be sure. I agree with a lot of Cons here on a lot of issues. I vote Republican nearly as often as I vote Democrat.
But I am also for the rule of law, and Trump has violated it. I would prefer he face censure rather than removal, though. If the GOP refuses witnesses and documents to make it a fair and open examination of the question at hand Pelosi should play the cards she has been dealt.
I want him impeached (which I got last night) and gone. Which Iām not getting.
Why should a President who committed high crimes and misdemeanors be allowed to stay in office? Who knows what other abuses of power and obstructions he will commit.
She needs to do her Constitutional oath.
Why not do the court thing now? Make sure all of the proposed witnesses can testify and take it all the way to the SCOTUS before transmitting.
I get where youāre coming from. Perhaps we also agree on the Demsā convenient timing on all of this?
Because if found to be true, youād have a stronger case. So far all you have is an impeachment of presumption. Nancy is guaranteeing itās all youāll ever have.
