Mitch McConnell Bests Pelosi and Schummer Again

Posted by Jack

MSN – “The Senate majority leader has insisted from the beginning that if the House were to impeach Trump, the Senate should treat him the same way it treated Bill Clinton in 1998. So, McConnell has steadfastly argued for the same rules package that passed the Senate 100-0 in the Clinton iteration. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” makes a pretty sensible argument.

The Democrats have raged against his position. This is different, they say. They are right — this is different. The articles of impeachment against Clinton were bipartisan, and the ones against Trump aren’t.

Given the hyper partisan nature of this impeachment against Trump, McConnell’s offer for the Clinton rules should have been greeted by Democrats with open arms. But instead they have demanded to treat a Republican president different from the way a Democratic president was treated not so long ago under the guise of producing a fair trial.

It’s the height of hypocrisy for Schumer to lead this charge. He used his impeachment vote in his 1998 Senate campaign as a political weapon, promising donors and voters that supporting him would lead to Clinton’s acquittal. In fact, some might even call what Schumer did a quid pro quo — you support me, and I’ll vote to acquit your president. Today, he tears into McConnell on a near daily basis for not being an impartial juror. What a joke. Schumer voted for the Clinton rules package back then and opposes it now because, well … I guess opposing Donald Trump is a helluva drug.

Democrats have repeatedly made their feelings on Trump known. Just Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren said: “I am willing to listen to the Trump administration put on a defense … (but) I don’t see how it’s possible not to vote for an impeachment.”

She’s not alone, of course, but her words are just the latest gut punch to Schumer’s claims that the Senate should turn into some episode of Perry Mason. Even Schumer himself said back in 1998 that the Senate is “not like a jury.”

The days of Pelosi being hailed as some next-level genius impeachment strategist I guess will have to come to an end for the liberal pundit industry. Her plan to withhold the articles of impeachment to create that “leverage” over McConnell failed spectacularly. No Republicans were harmed, pressured, or otherwise inconvenienced in the making of this sad, sad film.”

This entry was posted in Politics and Government. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Mitch McConnell Bests Pelosi and Schummer Again

  1. Chris says:

    Actually, Pelosi’s strategy is looking pretty good now that new evidence of crimes has emerged in the Ukraine affair, including a Republican candidate for office potentially threatening the safety of Ambassador Yovanovich in cahoots with Rudy Giuliani and his mobbed-up goons:

    Of course, whether these important news developments have any effect on the impeachment vote relies on Republican constituencies a) reading about this story in their preferred news sources and b) caring about it enough to pressure their Senators to vote for impeachment. The latter will never happen, and based on what I’m seeing at this site, the former isn’t happening either. So we can only hope that the rest of America is rightfully disgusted by the apathy of Republicans in the face of this blatant corruption, and votes Trump and his boot-licking toadies out in 2020.

  2. Chris says:

    It appears Trump may have removed Yovanovich because of a promise from the former Ukrainian prosecutor to release damaging info on Biden if she were removed–then got rolled by the prosecutor, who later said Biden did nothing wrong. Another quid pro quo showing the president making foreign policy decisions based on what would help his campaign rather than the national interest.

    Lutsenko wanted to get rid of Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador, in part because she had been critical of his office and supported a quasi-independent anti-corruption bureau he despised.

    The messages, written in Russian, show Lutsenko urging Parnas to force out Yovanovitch in exchange for cooperation regarding Biden. At one point, Lutsenko suggests he won’t make any helpful public statements unless “madam” is removed.

    “It’s just that if you don’t make a decision about Madam — you are calling into question all my declarations. Including about B,” Lutsenko wrote to Parnas in a March 22 message on WhatsApp.

    It’s unclear if ‘B’ is a reference to Biden or Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served from 2014 to 2019.

    Four days later, Lutsenko told Parnas that work on the case against the owner of the gas company is proceeding successfully and evidence of the money transfers of “B” had been obtained.

    “And here you can’t even remove one fool,” Lutsenko laments, using a sad-face emoticon as he again appeared to push for Yovanovitch’s ouster.

    “She’s not a simple fool[,] trust me,” Parnas responded. “But she’s not getting away.”

    Parnas, days later, told Lutsenko that “soon everything will turn around and we’ll be on the right course.” Lutsenko responded that he has copies of payments Burisma made to the investment firm co-founded by Biden’s son Hunter.

    The following month, Yovanovitch was removed from her post at Giuliani’s urging. Lutsenko later said publicly that he found no evidence of wrongdoing under Ukrainian law by Hunter or Joe Biden.

  3. Chris says:

    The Government Accountability Office has confirmed that the Trump administration broke the law when it secretly refused to release the congressionally approved aid to Ukraine:

    As I have said previously, there is no coherent or credible argument that forcing a Ukrainian-led investigation of Biden was so important that it justified withholding the aid. In fact, the Trump administration has itself pre-emptively destroyed that argument by constantly accusing Ukraine of being a corrupt country. So Ukraine can’t be trusted with the military aid money, but they could be trusted to fairly investigate Biden? It’s nonsense. And it further proves that Trump’s goal was merely to point to such an investigation in order to discredit Biden during an election, not to launch a legitimate investigation–which he could have done through the DOJ.

    Congressional Republicans will not care that Trump broke the law for personal gain to influence an election. Will you?

    • Peggy says:

      GAO: Obama White House Violated Law in Engagements With China:

      WaPo in 2014: GAO Ruling Against Obama Nothing More Than ‘Political Talking Point’:

      GAO Says Trump Broke Impoundment Law Opposed by Jefferson, Lincoln, JFK, Clinton, and Obama: (Excellent read. Why didn’t the GAO say Obama broke the law when he withheld funds to Ukraine in 2014?)

      Seven Times the GAO Found the Obama Administration Violated Federal Law:

      FYI: The GAO is a department under the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Think they know who funds them each year? “Do not bite the hand that feeds you.”

      • Peggy says:

        Very good article about how Obama failed to comply with congressional funds to save Ukraine from Russia’s invasion.

        Times Report Casts Shame on Obama’s Handling of Ukraine Crisis: (Must read full article.)

        “Despite compelling reasons, the Obama administration has allotted Ukraine the paltry sum of $33 million in nonlethal support such as meals-ready-to-eat, bomb-disposal equipment, night vision goggles, radios and engineering equipment – most of which has yet to arrive – as Senator John McCain pleads in frustration: “How can we not give them military assistance with all the Russian arms flowing in?” Bipartisan calls in Congress to supply weapons, ammunition, military vehicles and training go nowhere.

        The internal Obama administration debate – it seems the president is largely absent – displays a shocking lack of understanding of Putin and his KGB state.”

        • Chris says:

          I certainly agree that the Obama administration did not take the Russian threat seriously until it was too late. We should have listened to Romney and McCain. But Trump kisses Putin’s butt even after the extent of his aggression against us was revealed, and that’s worse.

      • Chris says:

        “Why didn’t the GAO say Obama broke the law when he withheld funds to Ukraine in 2014?)“

        Obama did not withhold congressionally approved aid that he had already signed off on. That didn’t happen.

        • Peggy says:

          Yes Obama did withhold funds for what congress approved. Congress “bipartisan” approved weapons. Obama sent blankets instead. Read it again.

          ““How can we not give them military assistance with all the Russian arms flowing in?” Bipartisan calls in Congress to supply weapons, ammunition, military vehicles and training go nowhere.

          • Chris says:

            The Free Beacon is misleading you, Peggy. There was no lethal aid package signed into law that was then withheld illegally. Obama simply did not sign the bill into law. That is how our system is supposed to work when there is a disagreement between the legislative and the executive branches. It is not supposed to work by the executive signing a bill into law and then secretly violating it until he gets what he wants from a foreign power. It is sad that I have to explain that to someone who fancies themselves a constitutional conservative.

      • Chris says:

        Peggy, you didn’t answer my question: do you care that Trump broke the law? Are you saying it’s OK because Obama did it too? Do you want Trump to be like Obama? I would agree that all presidents have committed some minor legal violations along the way and they aren’t all impeachable. The problem with Trump’s case—and the thing he’s being impeached for—is the bribery aspect and the clearly corrupt motive. The GAO takes the charitable view that the delay was done over a “policy disagreement,” but this was clearly personal; Trump ONLY asked Ukraine to investigate conspiracy theories that would benefit his campaign, with no other more general anti-corruption reforms. The goal was to “but her emails” Joe Biden in a general election, and everyone knows that. If he really thought an investigation into the Bidens was necessary, he could have asked Barr to launch one instead of severely extorting a foreign government that he said was corrupt to do so, using his personal lawyer and said lawyers’ thumb-headed henchmen to further the extortion campaign. Nothing about this was legitimate.

  4. Peggy says:

    You’re a joke Chris, Trump broke no law. This whole thing is a farce. Not even your wife could be forced to testify against you as neither should the president’s top executive advisors. Nor would you be forced to prove you’re innocent. Have you even thought ahead to the impact this will have on future presidents? Will the House rule the Executive branch from now on if they don’t like the outcome of election because they’re from the opposite party? Use the brain God gave you. Please!

    • Chris says:

      You’re a joke Chris, Trump broke no law.

      The GAO says he did.

      Not even your wife could be forced to testify against you as neither should the president’s top executive advisors.

      This is a very weird comparison, and there is absolutely no legal precedent that supports it.

      Nor would you be forced to prove you’re innocent.

      No one is being forced to prove they’re innocent. Trump isn’t being forced to prove anything. The jury is stacked in his favor, does not want to hear evidence or witnesses, and will almost surely refuse to convict him. I’d kill to have a trial like that, and then I’d be found not guilty of the murder.

      Have you even thought ahead to the impact this will have on future presidents?

      Yes! Hopefully future presidents will think twice before trying to leverage taxpayer money to force a foreign government to investigate a political rival based on a discredited conspiracy theory. This is a good thing! I’ve gone on record saying more presidents should be impeached. The fact that none have ever been removed is a travesty. Clinton should have been removed. If he had, I don’t think Donald Trump would be president now, since it would have shown we as a nation have higher standards about presidential behavior.

      Will the House rule the Executive branch from now on if they don’t like the outcome of election because they’re from the opposite party?

      That is not why Trump was impeached. Remember that Pelosi was against impeachment until the Ukraine news came out. Democrats controlled the House for nearly a year before the impeachment inquiry was even announced. When the Ukraine story broke, support for impeachment went way up, and now over half of Americans support removal. This isn’t an issue of what one party wants, it’s an issue of what a plurality of the American people want. I know Republicans don’t care about that anymore, and Trump won’t be removed, but hopefully, in November we can show that the will of the people still matters.

Leave a Reply to Chris Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *