Read Mitch McConnell's proposed rules for the Trump impeachment trial

Originally published at:



I’m a bit surprised he’s allowing for testimony at all. I had kind of expected a 2 hour floor discussion followed by a quick up/down vote followed by breathless Fox News headlines of Trump’s total vindication from baseless partisan witch hunt.

He has zero incentive to allow additional evidence to be presented at this point. It’s not going to help the president’s case. I think the only reason he’s allowing for even the amount of “trial” is that the president picked his dream team of lawyers and he wants to make sure they have their time in the sun. Basically turn the event into a campaign rally with loads of free publicity from the news networks.


If we’re looking for a good example of the rule of law mattering much less than who determines what the rules of law are, well here we are.

Black farce.


“Impeachment is about cleansing the office”

“thank God that we don’t need a crime to impeach and remove the president. Thank God we can get him on conduct unbecoming a president”

-Lindsay Graham, a republican who should kill himself if he has any honor.


“Upon the conclusion of questioning by the Senate, there shall be 4 hours of argument by the parties, equally divided, followed by deliberation by the Senate, if so ordered under the impeachment rules, on the question of whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents.”

who the hell wrote this shit?


McConnell is trying to strike a balance. To much fake work and it’s a cover-up and doesn’t clear Trump. He needs it to look enough like a real debate that enough people will be able to believe it. At the same time, he doesn’t want it to expose Republicans to votes that show they are clearly performing a cover-up.

He’s trying to thread the needle between clearly a farce and Trump’s clearly guilty while not creating tons of media showing Republicans committing a cover-up.


Rachel Maddow had a good point: Moscow Mitch “…said he had the votes to pass the resolution distributed last night. Clearly, he didn’t — or he wouldn’t have had to make last-minute changes to it today. Just worth keeping in mind in terms of his future assertions about what votes he says he has.”

this gives me crazy amounts of hope.


So when legal methods set out in the Constitution provide no redress for violations which are incontrovertible, and the election process itself has been hijacked by anti-democratic forces, what options do we then have to establish justice? Asking for a friend…


I believe one of the better options would be to stop buying corporate products whenever possible. Especially from these corporations:


I’m not sure he cares anymore. He already went on national television to declare that he has no intention of being impartial regarding the evidence here. He hooked his cart to the jackass in the oval office and he’s going to stay for the duration of the ride even if it means going off a cliff.


Read Mitch McConnell’s proposed rules for the Trump impeachment trial]

Live reaction shot


Why can’t the US constitution be clear and simple, like in Ukraine and Venezuela.

1 Like

In a few weeks give or take, we’ll be right back where we left off with trump grifting and scamming us all with no repercussions what-so-ever.

1 Like

he’s probably doing it as we speak.


CB Smash


“…left off?”


I know if I ever make a big deal about someone falsely accusing me of something, I will definitely rush through the proceedings in the dead of night, rather than slowly and painfully exposing them for the liars they are. Oh, wait.


“I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.” - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]