Sen. David Perdue was on Meet the Press and Chuck Todd marshaled his best Rachel Maddow inner spirit to get at him about impeachment but failed miserably. He was reduced to asking 'but, but what if Obama did this' theoreticals. Perdue kept shooting him down and was clearly enjoying himself. That was funny.

---

Sounds like a speedy trial

BREAKING: Senate Ground Rules for Trump’s Impeachment Trial Were Just Released

https://us24news.com/blog/2020/01/20/bre...LD0b0yNiI4

---

Everybody says acquittal is a done deal, but I don't trust:

The Republicans
The Senate
John Roberts

Perfect opportunity for DC to get rid of Trump

---

Everybody says acquittal is a done deal, but I don't trust:

The Republicans
The Senate
John Roberts

Perfect opportunity for DC to get rid of Trump

GOP suicide. They wouldn't recover before the country was already too far gone.

---

Everybody says acquittal is a done deal, but I don't trust:

The Republicans
The Senate
John Roberts

Perfect opportunity for DC to get rid of Trump

GOP suicide. They wouldn't recover before the country was already too far gone.

Everyone in DC is there to eat at the public trough, not to serve the people.  Trump is wrecking the game for both parties.

---

GOP suicide. They wouldn't recover before the country was already too far gone.

Everyone in DC is there to eat at the public trough, not to serve the people.  Trump is wrecking the game for both parties.

Well... 

Who's ready for civil war?

---

GOP suicide. They wouldn't recover before the country was already too far gone.

Everyone in DC is there to eat at the public trough, not to serve the people.  Trump is wrecking the game for both parties.

True, but if you don't win reelection as a Senator, there is no place for you at that trough.

---

Everyone in DC is there to eat at the public trough, not to serve the people.  Trump is wrecking the game for both parties.

True, but if you don't win reelection as a Senator, there is no place for you at that trough.

Do you think that's at the crux of McConnell's proposed resolution? 

I'm curious as to why there seems to be any opposition to witness testimony in the Senate trial.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

True, but if you don't win reelection as a Senator, there is no place for you at that trough.

Do you think that's at the crux of McConnell's proposed resolution? 

I'm curious as to why there seems to be any opposition to witness testimony in the Senate trial.

You know why.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Do you think that's at the crux of McConnell's proposed resolution? 

I'm curious as to why there seems to be any opposition to witness testimony in the Senate trial.

You know why.

I'm curious to hear insight from everyone - it's a serious and straightforward question. The common rhetoric dished out during the House proceedings was "can't wait for it to be fair in the Senate." Trump even said it himself that he'd happily have Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc. testify, but in the Senate where it'd be "fair." 

Over the past several weeks, that rhetoric has changed.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

True, but if you don't win reelection as a Senator, there is no place for you at that trough.

Do you think that's at the crux of McConnell's proposed resolution? 

I'm curious as to why there seems to be any opposition to witness testimony in the Senate trial.

I do not believe the house should be able to call any new witnesses. It isn't the senates job to re-do the trial. The house rushed this through and it isn't the senates problem that they want to call more witnesses. On the other hand, Trump was not given the opportunity to defend himself and the GOP were not able to call their own witnesses in the house trial.

Take it back to the house and start over. This is all a sham, and everyone with a functioning brain knows it.

---

Do you think that's at the crux of McConnell's proposed resolution? 

I'm curious as to why there seems to be any opposition to witness testimony in the Senate trial.

I do not believe the house should be able to call any new witnesses. It isn't the senates job to re-do the trial. The house rushed this through and it isn't the senates problem that they want to call more witnesses. 

Take it back to the house and start over.

I'm not opposed to that, but Mulvaney & Pompeo (among others) were blocked by the White House from testifying during House proceedings - the arguments were that the proceedings wouldn't be "fair."

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

I do not believe the house should be able to call any new witnesses. It isn't the senates job to re-do the trial. The house rushed this through and it isn't the senates problem that they want to call more witnesses. 

Take it back to the house and start over.

I'm not opposed to that, but Mulvaney & Pompeo (among others) were blocked by the White House from testifying during House proceedings - the arguments were that the proceedings wouldn't be "fair."

Rightly so as it turned out.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm not opposed to that, but Mulvaney & Pompeo (among others) were blocked by the White House from testifying during House proceedings - the arguments were that the proceedings wouldn't be "fair."

Rightly so as it turned out.

Do you feel like he (Trump) would have been impeached even with their testimony?

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

The ENTIRE reason for this impeachment sham and the ONE MONTH delay to deliver the articles to the Senate was an orchestrated effort to take Bernie and Elizabeth off the campaign trail while the most "electable" candidate can continue to campaign, or whatever the hell he does.

---

The ENTIRE reason for this impeachment sham and the ONE MONTH delay to deliver the articles to the Senate was an orchestrated effort to take Bernie and Elizabeth off the campaign trail while the most "electable" candidate can continue to campaign, or whatever the hell he does.

cough....molests children...cough....

---

I'm not opposed to that, but Mulvaney & Pompeo (among others) were blocked by the White House from testifying during House proceedings - the arguments were that the proceedings wouldn't be "fair."

Rightly so as it turned out.

But would it be "fair" now? If the House paused on the current articles of impeachment and called those witnesses now?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Rightly so as it turned out.

Do you feel like he (Trump) would have been impeached even with their testimony?

He was going to be impeached if there was no testimony at all. They didn't even need a good reason, just Nancy to go along with it.

---

Rightly so as it turned out.

But would it be "fair" now? If the House paused on the current articles of impeachment and called those witnesses now?

Pause? No chance. 

Start from the beginning? Sure, but they know they have a losing case, so there's no chance they want America to watch Clownshow Part II: Impeachment Boogaloo.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Do you feel like he (Trump) would have been impeached even with their testimony?

He was going to be impeached if there was no testimony at all. They didn't even need a good reason, just Nancy to go along with it.

---

If that's your stance, then there absolutely isn't any reason not to have witness testimony. If this whole thing is a sham, then show it through witness testimony. Call Trump, I don't care. I'd welcome it. Not having witness testimony for no other reason than "IT WAS SHAM!" only further increases public suspicion. 


Trump is impeached. That's not changing. If I were him and everything is as perfect as he claims it to be, I'd do everything possible to clear my name for the general public, ESPECIALLY considering there's an election coming up. That includes witness testimony, not withholding it.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

He was going to be impeached if there was no testimony at all. They didn't even need a good reason, just Nancy to go along with it.

---

If that's your stance, then there absolutely isn't any reason not to have witness testimony. If this whole thing is a sham, then show it through witness testimony. Call Trump, I don't care. I'd welcome it. Not having witness testimony for no other reason than "IT WAS SHAM!" only further increases public suspicion. 


Trump is impeached. That's not changing. If I were him and everything is as perfect as he claims it to be, I'd do everything possible to clear my name for the general public, ESPECIALLY considering there's an election coming up. That includes witness testimony, not withholding it.

The transcript this entire sham is about is out there for anyone to read. I think Trump wears this "impeachment" like a badge of honor, as he should because its a sham.

---