Posted on 01/23/2020 6:33:47 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
The challenge is becoming increasingly clear for House Democrats prosecuting President Donald Trump’s impeachment case as the Senate convenes for a second day of arguments in the landmark trial.
No matter how overwhelming the evidence confronting Trump, it becomes less compelling when presented again and again, day after day, as Democrats try to convince not just fidgety senators but an American public deeply divided over the Republican president in an election year.
The team led by Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of House Intelligence Committee, constructed a gripping account of Trump’s political pressure on Ukraine and attempt to cover up the “corrupt scheme” central to the charges. But the limits are apparent. Prosecutors must rely on the same loops of videotaped testimony — ambassadors, national security officials and even the president himself — after Trump’s GOP Senate allies blocked new witnesses.
Democrats were once reluctant to take on impeachment during an election year but are marching toward a decision by the Senate that the American public also will judge.
Some Republicans expressed disdain for it all. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa spoke sarcastically about how excited she was to hear the “overwhelming evidence” the House Democrats promised against Trump.
“And once we’ve heard that overwhelming evidence,” she said, raising her voice mockingly, “I don’t know that we’ll need to see additional witnesses, but let’s hear about that overwhelming evidence.”
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
It took 3 people to write this worthless article.
“and limits”
I guess there is a first time for everything?
It's AP, their Leftist Activists aren't that bright.
That's deliberate. They don't put multiple authors on a story because one is not competent. They put multiple authors on a story so they can contact sources separately and include contradictory quotes from the same source without directly lying about it in the story.
Perfect (hypothetical) example:
1. Reporter A contacts the FBI to ask if the Steele Dossier is a credible report. An "anonymous source" in the FBI tells the reporter that the Steele Dossier is very credible, so the report includes a line that says: "A high-ranking source with knowledge of the intelligence community's work on this matter believes the Steele Dossier's allegations about Donald Trump are credible."
2. Reporter B contacts FBI Director James Comey to get a quote for the story. Comey tells the reporter that the FBI thinks the Steele Dossier is bullsh!t. So the report also includes a line that says: "FBI Director James Comey said the FBI investigated the matter and has determined the Steele Dossier is 'not credible.'"
It all looks pretty standard and routine until you realize that James Comey is also the "anonymous source" who spoke to Reporter A.
And now you know how the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies work with the media to fabricate propaganda.
I don’t see any crime or an impeachable offense here. Worse thing the Democrats are accusing Trump of is bad judgment which isn’t meant for this kind of trial.
Just in case anyone forgets, no crime is mentioned in either article of impeachment.
“Overwhelming”, my tuchis.
GROUNDHOG DAY 2
The Dumbocrats keep saying the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again.
I can be a “Junkie” for this type of political stuff but I can’t stand the monotony of hearing the same thing 50 times.
I suspect all Americans except the “hands in their pants” Liberals have long since checked out.
Schiff does not have $#@t! But you can bet they got things on him. This whole sham is evidence of their treasonous actions which will get tracked all the way back to when Trump was elected. We got them by their gonads.
There’s no there there, but now there’s MOAR of that.
Its Day Two. The House’s Managers case will conclude tomorrow if they use up all of their allotted time.
Repetition doesn’t make the Democrats’ case stronger. Just the opposite.
People are just bored to death by it and even moderate Republican senators who are open to hearing from witnesses must be thinking if their case Is that weak, what probative value do possible witnesses have to offer?
I think after the White House concludes its case Monday and senators submit any questions they have, this is going to straight to a vote on the articles and then acquittal.
Democrats don’t have a corpus delicti, a perpetrator and a victim. They have absolutely nothing here.
Jonathan Turley warned them against rushing it last month but they ignored him to meet a political calendar. And now they’re having buyers’ remorse.
Not the Senate GOP’s job to fix the flaws in their case for them.
It was so “gripping” that a democratic senator slipped out early.
I always felt like having multiple journalists was the way that each journalist could deny THEY were the ones that put in all the fake information, and protect themselves.
Like how you had multiple people in a firing squad so each person could pretend that someone else’s bullet actually killed the criminal.
If Senate Democrats can’t stand the House managers, does any one want their internal purgatory to stretch out for weeks, never mind for months?
They’re gonna cut it short, no one cares and in six months it will all be forgotten.
Yes, Ted Cruz said there were more people in the gallery on a day when they name a post office than yesterday.
Also the scenario where an FBI agent leaks to the media and then uses those media reports get get warrants.
The scenario you describe is EXACTLY what the DOJ is trying to hide from the American public when it redacts a lot of the material in these various documents (the Mueller report, for example) for the purpose of "protecting sources and methods."
This is the new propaganda narrative from the driveby/DNCMedia.
The democrat House Managers are perfect; they’re oratory and evidence is “overwhelming”, concise and perfect.
However, the narrative goes, Republicans don’t care. “They’re not fair. They’ll acquit Trump because they won’t listen and they’re all uber partisans.”
The number of authors per research paper seems to be going up too....I always thought it was a resume builder - you say you authored 30 publications when it was really more like 10.
Success is not measured by time. In my Junior Theology class, the final was one question,” Why is there a God?” One classmate stood up and handed in his final in under a minute. I sat there for three hours writing. He got an “A”. His answer? “Why not?” So for Schiffy to drone on for two days about unicorns doesn’t change the answer. There is no crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.