Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. “Let’s Make it a Fair Process”

 

The Democrats passionately called for non-partisanship in 1998:

I guess they’ve changed their minds. We will see their arrogance and duplicity over the next couple of days in the Q & A sessions.

You can be sure that Senators will diligently prepare for these important sessions. They will consult their respective teams, the House Managers and the President’s Defense Team. In spite of their preparation, the Senators on both sides of the aisle will ask questions that have already been answered. They will try to create “gotcha” moments with the House Managers and the Defense Team. They will try to catch them providing answers that contradict their earlier presentations. They will try to impress upon their voting constituencies that they are dedicated to still impeaching Trump (Democrats) or acquitting him (Republicans). They will try to look competent, dedicated and intelligent.

In addition to asking meaningless questions, the Democrats will demonstrate that they ignored the information presented by the President’s Defense Team. They will act as if their own “facts” are still undisputed. They will also try to frame challenges in the form of questions. They will challenge the Defense Team and ask how their information acquits Trump (even though the Democrats have the burden of proof). They will refuse to accept the “Republican definitions” of legitimate articles of impeachment. They will demonstrate what happens when people are dominated by their emotions and their ideology and have abandoned reason. They will say they still need to question witnesses and receive documents to have a “fair” trial. They will say the entire trial doesn’t make a difference because Trump is a terrible president.

I appreciate the outstanding presentation that the President’s team made. It was thorough, persuasive (to an objective person) and powerful. I especially appreciated the video at the very end (shown above) that showed the Democrats who spoke at the Clinton impeachment, demanding that they have a non-partisan vote.

It didn’t matter.

It won’t matter.

And it is a sad commentary about the United States of America.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 22 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stad Thatcher

    I’m all for partisan politics. After all, politicians should stand for something. It used to be when a compromise occured and a bill got passed, it was a bipartisan effort not by design (setting out in the beginning to pass something bipartisan) but by each side fighting for they want and making reasonable compromises over time.

    In today’s climate however, the partisanship is vicious, almost all on the left. The right is slow to catch up because some Republicans think fighting tooth and nail for your beliefs is “mean-spirited”. I’m not sure if civility will ever return, but if it does, I don’t want it to be because Republicans go along with Democrats to get along . . .

    • #1
    • January 29, 2020, at 6:28 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Stad (View Comment):
    I’m not sure if civility will ever return, but if it does, I don’t want it to be because Republicans go along with Democrats to get along . . .

    I completely agree, @stad. Standing up for yourself is not the same as fighting for the sake of fighting. The Republicans are learning how to fight back. It’s long overdue.

    • #2
    • January 29, 2020, at 6:40 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  3. danok1 Member

    And the Dems will continue bloviating about how there needs to be a “fair trial.”

    They will ignore that it’s the accused who is entitled to a fair trial, not the prosecutors.

    Cocaine Mitch needs to end this farce ASAP.

    • #3
    • January 29, 2020, at 7:27 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  4. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    The Dems have ruined the idea of impeachment. This is after the GOP harmed it during the Clinton impeachment. I have been doing some reading. All the time we hear Dems say, “Impeachable is whatever the House says it is.” This comes from Gerald Ford from a speech during a 1970 impeachment. In context those words apply to judges. As judges have a lifetime appointment they must be held to a higher standard than elected positions (president and VP). For example, one judge was impeached for being regularly intoxicated while on the bench. The standard for impeachable for a president (and VP) is explicitly in the Constitution: bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. Here, “high crimes and misdemeanors” should be equivalently grave to bribery and treason. Clinton’s perjury in the Paula Jones case, while a crime, is not on the level of treason and bribery. 

    • #4
    • January 29, 2020, at 7:39 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  5. OldPhil Coolidge

    One other point about the Senators and Congress critters shown in those 1998 clips: Every one of them is still in Congress, 22 years later.

    • #5
    • January 29, 2020, at 7:49 AM PST
    • 11 likes
  6. Jim George Member

    Susan Quinn: In addition to asking meaningless questions, the Democrats will demonstrate that they ignored the information presented by the President’s Defense Team. They will act as if their own “facts” are still undisputed. They will also try to frame challenges in the form of questions.They will challenge the Defense Team and ask how their information acquits Trump (even though the Democrats have the burden of proof). They will refuse to accept the “Republican definitions” of legitimate articles of impeachment. They will demonstrate what happens when people are dominated by their emotions and their ideology and have abandoned reason. They will say they still need to question witnesses and receive documents to have a “fair” trial. They will say the entire trial doesn’t make a difference because Trump is a terrible president. 

    Susan, in this excellent post, especially the passage above, you have almost perfectly described many of the attorneys I dealt with in my practice, and it was absolutely maddening to try to get through their thick shell of stubbornness to make some attempt to reason with them. It is an unpleasant reality that some of the Never Trumpers right here on Ricochet are exactly that stubborn, and simply refuse to respond when confronted with clear evidence that they either cannot, or will not, deal with and try to respond to in an intellectually responsible way. As a matter of fact, in an odd sort of way, I really should appreciate some of these posts and comments of these rock solid Trump haters, as I now live in a world in which I rarely, if ever, have conversations with anyone who despises The President of the United States as much as some of our Never Trumpers do, and here, in order to avoid being chastised as I once was by a NT member for not naming names, I am obviously talking about the voice of the NT “community”, @garyrobbins and his faithful adherent, @Thegoldtooth, (human scum) (what an “interesting” way to label oneself, to use an obvious euphemism). Quite frankly, I continue to be amazed, in a respectful and admiring way, at the extensive dialogues resulting from some of these unhinged from reality posts and, for my part, at least, have found their posts so tiresome and boring that I seriously thought about suggesting that we be provided with an “unlike” button so we could clearly express our displeasure at some of these “discussions” advocating, among other things, the candidacies of such jokes as William Weld, Mark Sanford and even some of the Democrats running for President.

    Yes, I fear that you are absolutely correct in your observation that it will make no difference that they, the leading Democrats, were confronted with their very own words, diametrically opposed to their current positions. Perhaps @oldphil has homed in on, if not the central problem, certainly one of the leading problems– almost all of these totally shameless people have been in Congress forever!

    Sincerely, Jim

     

    • #6
    • January 29, 2020, at 9:38 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  7. Manny Member

    Thanks for that Susan. It was a powerful closing and I probably would have missed it. I also snickered at the CNN commentary at the end. There isn’t a fair bone in these lefties bodies any longer. These journalists are less than worthless. They are a dnager to the American society. They may have given the impulse to the Dems in the House to go forward thinking they have that kind of cover. I don’t know how we put this country back together again.

    • #7
    • January 29, 2020, at 9:42 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Jim George (View Comment):
    Quite frankly, I continue to be amazed, in a respectful and admiring way, at the extensive dialogues resulting from some of these unhinged from reality posts and, for my part, at least, have found their posts so tiresome and boring that I seriously thought about suggesting that we be provided with an “unlike” button so we could clearly express our displeasure at some of these “discussions” advocating, among other things, the candidacies of such jokes as William Weld, Mark Sanford and even some of the Democrats running for President.

    I’m with you, @jimgeorge. I never read their posts if they’re about Trump, and I don’t know why people argue with them. I have better things to do! But I love getting thoughtful comments like yours, and thank you for your kind words.

    • #8
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:08 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Manny (View Comment):

    Thanks for that Susan. It was a powerful closing and I probably would have missed it. I also snickered at the CNN commentary at the end. There isn’t a fair bone in these lefties bodies any longer. These journalists are less than worthless. They are a dnager to the American society. They may have given the impulse to the Dems in the House to go forward thinking they have that kind of cover. I don’t know how we put this country back together again.

    I feel the danger, too, @manny. They’ve gone beyond annoying. They don’t care about this country; they only want to destroy anything that gets in the way of their agenda.

    • #9
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:10 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Susan Quinn: In addition to asking meaningless questions, the Democrats will demonstrate that they ignored the information presented by the President’s Defense Team.

    Well, I was partly right, and all the Senators are showing a lack of creativity. A Republican Senator asks the President’s Defense Team a question that reflects something the Team already presented. This type of question gives the Team another chance to restate what they’ve already said. The Democrat Senators are doing the same thing, although Schiff lied. When asked about having the impeachment to stop Trump’s name being on the 2020 ballot (because all of us deplorables might pick him again), he used the argument that Trump was going to control the outcome of 2020 with his nefarious actions. Really? So boring.

    • #10
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:49 AM PST
    • 1 like
  11. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    Jim George (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: In addition to asking meaningless questions, the Democrats will demonstrate that they ignored the information presented by the President’s Defense Team. They will act as if their own “facts” are still undisputed. They will also try to frame challenges in the form of questions.They will challenge the Defense Team and ask how their information acquits Trump (even though the Democrats have the burden of proof). They will refuse to accept the “Republican definitions” of legitimate articles of impeachment. They will demonstrate what happens when people are dominated by their emotions and their ideology and have abandoned reason. They will say they still need to question witnesses and receive documents to have a “fair” trial. They will say the entire trial doesn’t make a difference because Trump is a terrible president.

    Susan, in this excellent post, especially the passage above, you have almost perfectly described many of the attorneys I dealt with in my practice, and it was absolutely maddening to try to get through their thick shell of stubbornness to make some attempt to reason with them. It is an unpleasant reality that some of the Never Trumpers right here on Ricochet are exactly that stubborn, and simply refuse to respond when confronted with clear evidence that they either cannot, or will not, deal with and try to respond to in an intellectually responsible way. As a matter of fact, in an odd sort of way, I really should appreciate some of these posts and comments of these rock solid Trump haters, as I now live in a world in which I rarely, if ever, have conversations with anyone who despises The President of the United States as much as some of our Never Trumpers do, and here, in order to avoid being chastised as I once was by a NT member for not naming names, I am obviously talking about the voice of the NT “community”, @garyrobbins and his faithful adherent, @Thegoldtooth, (human scum) (what an “interesting” way to label oneself, to use an obvious euphemism). Quite frankly, I continue to be amazed, in a respectful and admiring way, at the extensive dialogues resulting from some of these unhinged from reality posts and, for my part, at least, have found their posts so tiresome and boring that I seriously thought about suggesting that we be provided with an “unlike” button so we could clearly express our displeasure at some of these “discussions” advocating, among other things, the candidacies of such jokes as William Weld, Mark Sanford and even some of the Democrats running for President.

    Yes, I fear that you are absolutely correct in your observation that it will make no difference that they, the leading Democrats, were confronted with their very own words, diametrically opposed to their current positions. Perhaps @oldphil has homed in on, if not the central problem, certainly one of the leading problems– almost all of these totally shameless people have been in Congress forever!

    Sincerely, Jim

     

    As a practical, electoral politics, matter, I think we have to go through the new witnesses process to get Susan Collins reelected. It will also likely help drag Martha McSally and Cory Gardner over the finish line. See the 2020 Senate electoral map. Reportedly, Mitt Romney (Snake-Self) will vote with Democrats to only have the witness(es) that they think will hurt President Trump. If so, he needs to be defeated in that effort and then start facing real consequences in committee assignments until he is pushed into the basement without a phone and joins his real party, the Democrats.

    • #11
    • January 29, 2020, at 8:44 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  12. Stad Thatcher

    Manny (View Comment):
    I don’t know how we put this country back together again.

    Why am I thinking of a divorce based on irreconcilable differences? One other Ricochetti said the US needs a “Two State Solution”, and I’m slowly coming around to that position myself . . .

    • #12
    • January 30, 2020, at 6:14 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Some other factors made the Q&A session a disaster–for the House Managers. First, they continually avoided answering questions because they were (1) unable to figure out an appropriate answer; (2) were afraid to give an answer; (3) felt most comfortable referring to their earlier deeply flawed presentations. Second, they (especially Adam Schiff) used terms that they were prohibited (bribery, extortion) because they were not contained in the articles. Eventually Schiff stopped using them, but I think Nadler was so brain dead that he kept using them. I don’t know if he didn’t care what the Defense team said or he just couldn’t keep track of what he was saying. Finally, Schiff started to attack the Defense team, too, probably to get back at them for calling him out. What a circus. Can’t wait for today’s revue.

    • #13
    • January 30, 2020, at 6:45 AM PST
    • 1 like
  14. Rodin Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    Reportedly, Mitt Romney (Snake-Self) will vote with Democrats to only have the witness(es) that they think will hurt President Trump. If so, he needs to be defeated in that effort and then start facing real consequences in committee assignments until he is pushed into the basement without a phone and joins his real party, the Democrats.

    There needs to be pressure on him to resign. Use the hash tag #baitandswitch. Romney (Pierre Delecto) has been dishonorable in his public dealings. If I lived in Utah I would be beyond furious,

    • #14
    • January 30, 2020, at 7:11 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  15. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    Stad (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I don’t know how we put this country back together again.

    Why am I thinking of a divorce based on irreconcilable differences? One other Ricochetti said the US needs a “Two State Solution”, and I’m slowly coming around to that position myself . . .

    I may have to move out of CA and into the bread basket of deplorables first. 

    • #15
    • January 30, 2020, at 11:07 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  16. Ontheleftcoast Member

    • Susan’s description of Democrat behavior reminds me a lot of how US negotiators described the behavior of some of the USSR’s negotiators.

    • Mark Levin’s analysis (he credited a listener for it) is that the reason the Democrats put this stinking pile of Schiff into the Senate is that their strategy is now focused around judicial nominations. (Levin specified the Supreme Court, but it probably won’t stop there.) The new battlecry: “We will not accept judicial candidates proposed by a PRESIDENT WHO HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.”

    • Fairness” in the Democrat lexicon means “whatever helps us win.”

    • In our lifetimes, the US passed through a period in which the ACLU evolved from an organization founded to protect the Communist Party to one which did indeed support free speech as a good in itself and not merely as a tactic. But by the 1960s, social justice activists in the organization were helping to destroy the state mental hospitals in the name of fairness. The consequences, as my late stepfather (a psychiatrist with experience including working in prisons and state hospitals) predicted as the California state hospital system went under: “They will be in our streets and in the parks.”

    • The same news media that promotes the idea of Putin as the all-powerful monstrous tyrant admires China because it can Get Things Done without that messy democracy stuff (shades of the way in which Mussolini was much admired) and meanwhile describes Xi as sort of a democratic leader after all because there are groups and factions he has to keep happy. 

     

    • #16
    • January 30, 2020, at 11:59 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  17. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    “We will not accept judicial candidates proposed by a PRESIDENT WHO HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.”

    I hadn’t heard this one. But it makes sense. All the more reason (among one hundred others) to keep the Senate. Good grief. Is this not a nightmare?? Thanks @ontheleftcoast.

    • #17
    • January 30, 2020, at 12:03 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  18. Stad Thatcher

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    “We will not accept judicial candidates proposed by a PRESIDENT WHO HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.”

    I hadn’t heard this one. But it makes sense. All the more reason (among one hundred others) to keep the Senate. Good grief. Is this not a nightmare?? Thanks @ontheleftcoast.

    I think he nailed it.

    • #18
    • January 30, 2020, at 12:21 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  19. Manny Member

    Stad (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I don’t know how we put this country back together again.

    Why am I thinking of a divorce based on irreconcilable differences? One other Ricochetti said the US needs a “Two State Solution”, and I’m slowly coming around to that position myself . . .

    I understand the feeling and I feel like that sometimes, but there would be no way to have people relocate. Families would have to be split apart. And we have two weaker countries rather than one stronger. The medicine would be worse than the disease. 

    • #19
    • January 30, 2020, at 3:40 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  20. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    Manny (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I don’t know how we put this country back together again.

    Why am I thinking of a divorce based on irreconcilable differences? One other Ricochetti said the US needs a “Two State Solution”, and I’m slowly coming around to that position myself . . .

    I understand the feeling and I feel like that sometimes, but there would be no way to have people relocate. Families would have to be split apart. And we have two weaker countries rather than one stronger. The medicine would be worse than the disease.

    My understanding is that this has been the dynamic between the urban and the non-urban since we started to live in huge cities; people packed in are expected surrender their power to protectors while people spread out have to/want to protect themselves. 

    The Constitution split the difference by making a giant ‘outside’ and agreeing to protect it with their patented InstoArmy™ and letting the people in the vast ‘inside’ take care of their own protection how they saw fit with the understanding that they got to have the tools if they wanted them.

    Long may we individually reign. 

    • #20
    • January 30, 2020, at 4:52 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  21. Manny Member

    TBA (View Comment):
    My understanding is that this has been the dynamic between the urban and the non-urban since we started to live in huge cities; people packed in are expected surrender their power to protectors while people spread out have to/want to protect themselves. 

    There’s something to that, though I don’t think it explains everything. I think there is another dynamic working in western cultures that also overlays on top of that. Since at least the “Enlightenment” there is a traditional versus anti-traditional dichotomy in western cultures. But it may go back even further than the Enlightenment. Before that there may have been a medieval/Renaissance and Catholic/Protestant dichotomies, which may have been different variations of traditional/anti-traditional dichotomies.

    • #21
    • January 30, 2020, at 5:48 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  22. Ontheleftcoast Member

    ACLU decal: Dissent is Patriotic

    But in (D) strongholds: Patriotism is Dissent

    • #22
    • January 31, 2020, at 12:57 AM PST
    • 2 likes