^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lindsay Graham said on Maria today that there will be a trial using identical rules as the Clinton impeachment; House Managers will present the RAT case; President's attorneys (including Ratcliffe etc. from House) will present President's case; senators get to vote on witnesses, meaning: NEITHER SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED TO CALL ANY WITNESSES.
So, after they jump through all these procedural hoops, the President will be RAPIDLY ACQUITTED.
Ken Starr and Mark Levin discussed the options in detail, and while Starr agreed that Levin’s “declare it null and void to stop the poison from entering the Senate” could be done, he thinks the Senate will instead rely on it’s historic attitude of “comity”. In short they will give the House way more credit than they deserve, dignify the piece of crap articles by hearing arguments from House managers, and then from the defense, but it will be done primarily to show how the Senate takes the high road rather than as a long drawn-out process to expose facts, since the outcome will be acquittal anyway.
It was a very interesting discussion, I am not a fan of Levin’s radio show but on TV he is calm and informative. Even if the Senate takes the “comity” approach, it will serve as an example of the kind of fair-minded even-handed government we deserve alongside the unconstitutional dirty tactic of the House democrats.
Lindsay Graham said on Maria today that there will be a trial using identical rules as the Clinton impeachment; House Managers will present the RAT case; President’s attorneys (including Ratcliffe etc. from House) will present President’s case; senators get to vote on witnesses, meaning: NEITHER SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED TO CALL ANY WITNESSES.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Senators get to vote on witnesses, why will neither side be allowed to call any witnesses? Excuse me for dumb.