Good for Mitch. Now, where those articles at? Oh—not the Senate? Good. It gives the House a chance to do what many GOP senators are demanding: get evidence from witnesses whose testimony Trump obstructed.
If the Senate can't guarantee a real trial, more investigation must occur.
If the Senate can't guarantee a real trial, more investigation must occur.
1/ I don't know that Democrats will go this route—but they should. Mitch says the Senate won't—"zero percent chance"—try a case without articles, even though they want to do so without hearing evidence/witnesses. He justifies this by saying Democrats did too little investigation.
2/ If Mitch is using "lack of evidence" as grounds to not hold a real trial with witnesses, in what *world* is it wrong for House Democrats to provide the obvious response: okay—well—we disagree, but *per your request* we'll keep investigating?
Don't let Mitch have it both ways.
Don't let Mitch have it both ways.
3/ It's *Mitch McConnell* who has an incoherent position, as he says:
1) There's no evidence;
2) we don't want to hear evidence.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi can have a *coherent* position:
1) You say there's no evidence; we disagree, but
2) we'll get you your damn "more evidence."
1) There's no evidence;
2) we don't want to hear evidence.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi can have a *coherent* position:
1) You say there's no evidence; we disagree, but
2) we'll get you your damn "more evidence."
4/ OTOH, if Nancy Pelosi turns the articles over she *cedes* to McConnell—by not calling his bluff—the rhetorical high ground, as it's *her* position that becomes incoherent:
1) We want America to hear witnesses but
2) We won't do anything to make sure those witnesses are heard.
1) We want America to hear witnesses but
2) We won't do anything to make sure those witnesses are heard.
