Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 345: Ready for ‘Live! Live! Live!’ or ‘Die! Die! Die!’ in the senate?

Thumbs down
Now that the House is nearly certain to vote on whether to send impeachment articles to the senate for judgement on the removal of President Donald Trump, it’s time to contemplate what such a tribunal might look like in the establishment dominated Washington world. Impeachment doesn’t come along very often -- and few, including myself, recall with any specificity what Bill Clinton’s hearings were like almost twenty-one years ago -- so this is one area where we’re pretty much making up the rules as we go along.

Which is kind of fun in a sense because it leaves ample room for speculation and ideas in a perfect universe. With the Democrat clowns now running the circus, the possibilities are endless!

Apparently, there’s a Capitol Hill movement afoot with members of both parties itching to get it all done (meaning the trial) as soon as practicable, including a proposal to not call any witnesses. The notion is gaining popularity, too. Jordain Carney reported at The Hill, “Senate Republicans are weighing a speedy impeachment trial that could include no witnesses for President Trump’s legal team or for House Democrats. The discussions come as the House is moving forward with articles of impeachment against Trump, teeing up a trial in the Senate that would start in January.

“The White House has indicated publicly that it has a wish list of potential witnesses, including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry.

“But Republican senators, including Trump allies and members of leadership, appear reluctant to drag themselves through a drawn-out trial with messy procedural votes when the outcome appears pre-baked.”

The outcome is so pre-baked it’s already burned in the oven and the heat was turned off weeks (if not months) ago. It’s like playing the Super Bowl and everyone knows the final score before the referee even hands the ball to the kicker to tee it up. Or anointing Gerrit Cole (new pitcher with the hated New York Yankees!) next year’s Cy Young award winner today, well before spring training starts for the 2020 season.

Only in Washington could something as asinine and fruitless as impeaching Trump (over nothing) be granted special attention and assigned real gravity by the supposedly watchful establishment media. Granted they need something to talk about in between jaunts to the early voting states to gush about the subtle differences in the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates, but the whole subject is absurd. When they’re devoting column space and TV airtime to talking about how many witnesses to call in a trial which everyone knows is already “concluded,” what’s the point?

Again, if precedent matters here, according to Carney’s article, the senate voted 100-0 in 1999 to set a procedure for filing motions, determine the length of time senators got to ask questions and how witnesses would be called in the Big Bubba Clinton trial. A second resolution on witnesses broke down along party lines (how unpredictable, right?). Even then it was agreed to (by the Republican majority) that central figures like Monica Lewinsky, Sidney Blumenthal and Vernon Jordan Jr. would be placed on the stand to tell their side of the story under oath.

I don’t recall much about Bubba’s trial -- because the result there was already preordained as is Trump’s -- but I do remember there wasn’t much suspense because the Democrats weren’t going to let it lead to removal. If anything, the drama involved which Republicans would defy the will of their own base to vote against convicting the proven perjurer and liar with weird fetishes (a cigar?). It’s somewhat understandable how people didn’t want Clinton gone simply because he couldn’t keep his pants zipped up around a young, early twenty-something intern, but the fact he committed perjury was never in question -- and that’s serious stuff.

Why rehash the past? Bill might’ve been saved from the impeachment gallows but wife Hillary certainly took the fall years later (during the 2008 Democrat nominating race) for standing by her (guilty) man and then covering his (rear end). What a soulless clod she is. But she isn’t president now!

Trump didn’t do anything involving Ukraine that wasn’t completely within his presidential authority. And the House Democrats’ “witnesses” couldn’t add substantive backup because they’d heard stuff second or third-hand or “speculated” as to what happened. And besides, a president has incredibly wide latitude to exercise his powers in foreign relations. When you get down to it, Trump didn’t even ask the Ukrainians to do anything; he couched it as a “favor” to investigate the reported 2016 election sleaze (CrowdStrike, which Democrats claim is a conspiracy theory) and threw-in the Hunter Biden thing as an additional tidbit of mutual interest.

There are a few schools of thought on the whether to call witnesses next month. First is obviously to do as proposed and opt for the speediest of all speedy trials and get it done within a few days. Do this with the knowledge that the public doesn’t care whether there’s a single witness or a hundred and the only ones who will be paying attention are liberal basement dwelling politics nerds with faded Obama posters on their walls and black Antifa garb in their closet (along with instructions on how to make a urine bomb). This is the micro-fraction of the electorate who swallows everything Nancy Pelosi and “Chucky” Schumer say about Trump and lurk in controlled silence hoping impeachment will function as intended.

The second is to take a middling course and call some pertinent witnesses but with an agreement among Republicans to not allow the process to get out of hand (they can limit the number because it requires 51 votes to assent to call someone in particular). Since there are 53 Republicans, they can vow in advance to vote “no” on Democrat proposed testifiers (such as Vice President Mike Pence or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) unless McConnell gives the thumbs up when the name is posed.

“Grim Reaper” Mitch could even position himself on a dais above the senate chamber floor and give a Roman emperor-like thumbs up or down on each Democrat offering. The gallery could chant “Live! Live! Live!” or “Die! Die! Die!”, just like in the movie Gladiator! Wouldn’t it be fun to watch?

In all seriousness, this (not the emperor part) could be a means to get to the bottom of important and relevant mysteries without adding an unnecessary quantity of superfluous bloviating by Democrats and their compromised legal henchmen. Yes, the (U.S. Attorney John) Durham report is forthcoming, but we don’t know when or if it will be conclusive in ways that are relevant to the 2020 presidential race. The Obama-led deep state isn’t on the ballot, but several dirtier-than-heck Democrats certainly are. After the Mueller fiasco -- and now this impeachment farce -- respectable citizens want to know where the truth lies.

The third potential tack is to drag the trial out for as long as possible, get the scoop on every Democrat implicated in the mess -- are you hearing us, Joe and Hunter Biden? -- and stick it to the senate presidential candidate Democrats who will rue the day they ever advocated for impeachment, since they’ll be stuck in their cushioned Washington chairs instead of begging for more support in Iowa and New Hampshire.

“Mayor Pete” Buttigieg must be quietly lobbying for the third alternative, figuring he’ll earn extra time on local media in the deep freeze of Iowa and New Hampshire. Since practically everyone’s completely tuned-out of the impeachment white noise, voters will look with more attention to local matters in the coming month or so. Poor Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar (Michael Bennett, pfft!); they’re at the mercy of Turtle Mitch and his scheduling calendar. If Mitch says you need to be in Washington, skip that last Democrat debate before the Iowa caucuses!

McConnell could make this trial exceedingly uncomfortable for all Democrats if he chooses to draw things out, go over everything with a fine-tooth comb and leave no stone unturned. Mitch could even bring in the folks who were lambasted and falsely convicted in the press during the Mueller investigation. It could spring Paul Manafort for a while too. Just saying.

Any of these three scenarios spells trouble for Democrats because there’s so much at hand to expose to the light of day. And their senate leader, “Chucky” Schumer, says impeachment jury duty trumps everything else. It doesn’t get any better than this. Alexander Bolton reported at The Hill, “Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says Democratic colleagues running for president, such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), should prioritize the Senate impeachment trial over campaigning ahead of the Iowa caucuses.

“The trial could tie up senators on the Senate floor for the entire month of January, right before the first contest of the Democratic primary calendar scheduled in Iowa for Feb. 3. With the possibility of close votes on procedural questions such as what witnesses should be called to the Senate floor, Schumer says colleagues should make the trial their first priority, even if it might tread on their campaign plans.

“’This has to come first. This is one of the most solemn decisions that anyone has to make and I’ve told all members of my caucus that scheduling concerns are secondary to doing this the right way,’ Schumer told reporters…”

You can bet Warren and Sanders were thrilled to hear their day-job “boss”, the notorious “Chucky”, tell them to skip out on the presidential campaigning stuff and commit to sitting around bored as heck in the senate chamber watching their chances of winning the nomination shrink by the hour. Bolton’s article additionally indicated senators should expect to be in session six days a week during the presentation of the case so as to be there to listen attentively to the House managers and Trump’s defense.

Bolton further added, “During that time, senators are required to sit in their seats and listen to the evidence without speaking. They may submit questions and proposals for motions to the presiding chair, who would be Chief Justice John Roberts.”

What? A politician is “expected” to sit passively and listen and not talk? Can they text (like they do during the State of the Union Address) or Tweet? Or is it no phones at the dinner table? And do you think any of them would dare submit a motion to Roberts that might actually cause the case to be prolonged? Meanwhile, Republicans will be suppressing smiles and howls while drawing up motion after motion, all the while observing “The Bern” and “Pocahontas” frown and squirm as the clock ticks away another hour!

It'll be like a room full of seventh graders trying to drive the substitute teacher crazy. The analogy suits the mentality of the jury.

There isn’t much funny about impeaching a president and watching him being tried before the stodgy senate, but Democrats have ruined any pretense of seriousness in this current witch hunt. Senators will decide soon whether -- and who -- to call as witnesses. Trump will survive, but the nation won’t forgive.

Share this

Senate impeachment options

I think the Senate should call all the witnesses that President Trump needs to rebut the asinine accusations put forth in the Democrat House Clown Show.