Senate to Condemn Impeachment Probe

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...after-trump-gripes/ar-AAJhH34?ocid=spartanntp

Senate Republicans are moving to denounce the House’s impeachment inquiry, with Sen. Lindsey Graham set to introduce a resolution on Thursday condemning the Democrat-led effort.

The South Carolina Republican, a close ally of President Donald Trump, has attacked Democrats for their handling of the impeachment process. His resolution — backed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — criticizes the House for its “closed-door, illegitimate impeachment inquiry,” according to a press release.

“This is a kangaroo court and it will not stand,” Graham said this week. “I’ve got a resolution saying if you’re going to impeach the president give him the same rights that Richard Nixon had and that Bill Clinton had ... what’s going on now is disgusting.”

Senate Republicans have lambasted House Democrats for holding depositions behind closed doors and for declining to hold a vote that would formalize an impeachment inquiry.

McConnell said Thursday that no time has been set yet for a vote but that he "obviously" supports the measure.

The resolution comes after Trump urged Republicans to “get tough and fight” for him on impeachment — a request Republicans appear to be taking to heart. House Republicans stormed a secure facility Wednesday where impeachment investigators depose witnesses to protest the closed-door impeachment interviews — a stunt that caused a five-hour delay in testimony from Laura Cooper, a Pentagon official. The members refused to leave, which prompted intervention from the House sergeant-at-arms.

The Graham resolution could put pressure on Republicans who have appeared open to considering the evidence in the House impeachment inquiry. But even Republicans who have declined to offer predictions on how the inquiry might end have attacked Democrats for how they've handled impeachment.

 

There is no defense for Trump, so attack the process. It is almost silly through. The Senate has no power over the House.

 

You're right, Schiff for brains won't allow a defense of Trump, this is a kangaroo court. Way to go Sen. Graham!

 

Except that in the impeachment process (formalized or not) the court isn't in session. The 'courtroom' is the Senate. The House is the investigator who presents evidence to the senate.

Like, it's almost as though they've realized that the general public has no clue as to how these processes are supposed to play out, and just pounce on that ignorance to push their narrative. It's hilariously ridiculous.

 

This is being run completely differently than the Clinton impeachment, as Rep. McCarthy and others have said. The public will see this as the partisan political stunt it is.

 

Too much article posted...

This is fine.. Keeps Lindsey out of trouble and affects nothing...

 

I agree, I especially like this quote from him:

 

Can you have a kangaroo court in the absence of a court?

 

Man, he’d probably be so ashamed of himself if he were capable of it.

 

False:

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-j...lic&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution
Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said Thursday that Republican complaints about the "secrecy" of closed-door impeachment hearings don't hold water because the process is "consistent with the rules" that a "Republican majority" signed into law.

"As frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors...they are consistent with the rules," Napolitano, who previously served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge, explained during a segment of the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends.

"When were the rules written last?" the legal expert asked. "In January of 2015. And who signed them? John Boehner [the Republican speaker of the House]. And who enacted them? A Republican majority," he asserted. "The rules say that this level of inquiry, this initial level of inquiry, can be done in secret," Napolitano said. He pointed out that he personally wishes he could view the testimony and that it was public, but he added that the impeachment investigation was thus far consistent with the ones conducted against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

"Eventually, there will be a public presentation of this, at which lawyers for the president can cross-examine these people and challenge them," Napolitano explained. "This is like presenting a case to a grand jury, which is never done in public."

 

Here's a good one from Pelosi on Clinton's impeachment. She seems to have changed her tune for some reason.

“Today the Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness, but impeaching him with a vengeance," then-House Minority Leader Pelosi declared on the House floor in December 1998.

She continued, "In the investigation of the president, fundamental principles which Americans hold dear -- fairness, privacy, checks and balances -- have been seriously violated and why? Because we are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton. ... Until the Republicans free themselves of that hatred, our country will suffer.”

 

Here's another opinion:

"If the Democrats are resting their decision to impeach the president, or not, on political advantage rather than principles, they are on shaky ground. Instead, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff would be wise to follow the standard that House Judiciary Chairman Peter Rodino set in 1974 as his committee moved forward with the Nixon impeachment inquiry. Unlike Schiff, whose Intelligence panel is more star chamber than objective investigation, Rodino understood that to be effective, his committee’s process and methods had to be fair to both sides.

He chose a bipartisan team of staff lawyers to work with his committee. He allowed Nixon’s White House counsel, James St. Clair, to be present at committee meetings and receive the same documents the committee received. Yes, there were some partisan flare-ups as the committee worked, often behind closed doors. It’s Washington after all.

But because Rodino respected the loyal opposition and their supporters and allowed them to play an appropriate role, leaks were kept to a minimum as both Republicans and Democrats worked together to produce an outcome that was seen as fair to both sides.

Most importantly, before he began his inquiry, Rodino asked for a vote by the full House to move forward. As he said at the time, “Jurisdiction over impeachment is nowhere expressly conferred. It is not enough to argue that the general power of the Judiciary Committee to proceed may ultimately be upheld.”

Yet, in Pelosi’s world, a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry isn’t a necessity. Apparently, it’s a political question — a decision based on how it might hurt her party’s members, and not a confirmation by the House to proceed. Pelosi has chosen raw power over Rodino’s even-handed proceedings and that tells almost half the country their vote in 2016 simply doesn’t matter.

I remember 1998 and the damage done to the country in the months of impeachment. If we are to go down that path again, it’s time Pelosi follows the remarkable precedent established by Rodino’s call on the House floor for an authorizing vote and a fair process."

David Winston

 

No kidding.

And everybody KNOWS why that is, so you may want to engage in more study of The Clinton Impeachment.

 

Just curious, Clinton was convicted of perjury and obstruction, should he have been removed from office?

 

I like her comment as well.

What do you feel is unfair about this process that was mandated by republicans?

Maybe you should change the law instead of whining about it — that’s what the Republicans say when anyone has a gripe about anything that benefits them at least.

 

Lindsey Graham never said the quotes you attribute to him and are seen in video form as well...

 

It was not "hatred" of Clinton but contempt for his vile conduct, for raping Juanita Broaddrick, for exposing himself to Paula Jones, for groping the widow of a staff member just days after her husband died. Clinton is a contemptible P.O.S. Now Donald Trump laughingly told about grabbing women, but they didn't seem to mind. That was what Clinton sycophants called "consensual" when he got blow jobs from Monica, young enough to be his daughter. But with Trump, the Lying Left uses entirely different standards, as usual.

 

Yes.
Now you!

If trump violated the constitution, attempted obstruction, tried to bribe foreign officials or directed public funds to benefit his companies should he be removed from office?

 

But you're OK with her hatred of Trump today, okaaay......

 

Huh?

When was he CONVICTED?

Unless you have developed an Alternate History?

 

It's about time for the Senate to step up. Our government is supposed to be for and of the people. Instead, we have some Democratic Party elites hiding information from the U.S. populace, because they know it will burn them down. The Democrats have went full Soviet. They are not even allowing 75% of the HOR Representatives to have access to this super secret (NON-CLASSIFIED) information.

The Senate needs to call the phony "Whistle Blower" and nuke the very inception of the Democrats new conspiracy theory. The person has no protections as they violated the Whistle Blower rules by going to Adam Schiff's Office prior to the IG and DOJ, which is explicitly against the rules. Let's shine some light on these cockroaches.

 

The defense comes in the trial, not the investigation lol

 

Process process process
That’s what you do when you can’t talk about the facts

 

A huge if, where has he done so? By beating Hillary?

No, IF he did those things, a censure would be more appropriate, and would have been for Clinton also. Clinton's approval went up in the process, and it was seen to be political overreach by the GOP.

 

This video?
https://theweek.com/speedreads/8705...reed-trumps-impeachment-obstruction-back-1998