The political cartoon in the Nov. 5 News-Post shows a list of the “Official Rules/Democrat U.S. House of Representatives/Impeachment Inquiry” printed on House of Representatives stationery. The cartoon has two “Rules”: 1) We Win; 2) Trump Loses. The message is that the Democrats’ impeachment process is arbitrary and completely partisan.

This is about as disingenuous a cartoon as I have seen in that space. Shame on your editor for thinking it worth printing. Impeachment is a serious business. The actions of the president that are being investigated are serious, and should be regarded as such by Americans of all political persuasions.

The Constitution itself sets no specifics of process for such an inquiry. Nevertheless, the process used by the House of Representatives in the closed-door hearings provided equal time for Republican members during questioning. The rules going forward are, by design, essentially the same as those used during the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, and for the latter, were vetted by a Republican House majority. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which would report out articles of impeachment, points out that the process now being used in the House of Representatives gives “rights for the majority and for the President equal to those provided during the Nixon and Clinton inquiries.” In other words, it is both fair and impartial.

I think the “rules” for impeachment of a president as envisioned by our founders, and practiced by (now) four different Houses of Representatives, should simply read:

(1) The Constitution wins; (2) The facts win; (3) The American People win.

Jan Samet O’Leary

Frederick

(37) comments

veritas

Dems... Save yourselves from yourselves. Stop the madness and jump off the impeachment train before it turns into a circus train — and it already may be too late. Yesterday’s hearing was little more than the first day of a show trial. Thanks to political mastermind Adam Schiff, who for some inexplicable reason thought it was a good idea to selectively leak the high notes of behind-closed-doors testimony of witnesses in the weeks leading up to the hearing, yesterday’s “revelations” were, in reality, old news from the previous 14 days. Yawn. The impeachment needle did not budge either way for supporters or opponents of impeachment. Barring a bomb shell, this fiasco is going nowhere fast. You Dems have a visceral hatred for Trump and have been working feverishly since Nov 8, ‘16 to remove him from office by hook or by crook. OK, we get it. Trump is a long day. An acquired taste that even we Republicans have yet to fully acquire. But your efforts to bring him down have been unfair, unscrupulous and unattractive. Trump’s implementation of a Ukraine policy has been inept and even ill advised, but it is neither illegal nor rises to the level of an impeachable offense. If you want to see what legitimate impeachment looks like check out CNN’s “Tricky Dick” series, Episode 4. Now that’s what high crimes and misdemeanors are all about. Be patriots, Dems. Get your act together and remove Trump the old fashioned way on November 3, 2020.

hayduke2

Spin it baby, spin it.

bosco

Spin that moment of silence when the two career bureaucrats were asked what the impeachable offense in the phone conversation was.

Spin the Dim's comment that hearsay is more reliable than direct evidence.

Spin Nancy's assertion that the President needs to prove his innocence.

Spin Quid Pro Joe's video bragging about how he withheld a billion in US aid to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor investigating the company paying Biden some 80K a month.

Spin it baby, spin it.

phydeaux994

“WHERE’S RUDY”....???

olefool

This is a series of questions for the GOP posters here: If you walked into a bank, armed, with the intention to rob the bank, and you stick your gun in the teller's face and she gives you the money and you go to leave the bank but the cops bust you on the way out the door and you drop the money, does that mean your are innocent of any crime????? HELL NO... it means your are GUILTY AS SIN.... so why are so many people so quick to give Trump a pass on his criminality???? So I again ask the Trumpers, why, if he so weak and feeble that you believe it's OK for him and you to lie, cheat and sell out our country in order to get re-elected??? Why would you want a coward like that as your president anyway??? All I can say is get ready for the GOP clown show during the impeachment testimony, this will be a shame and black mark on our freedoms and rule of law...

Dwasserba

I agree with you about the cartoon. As an Independent, I let it go as a bone thrown in the R direction.

threecents

I disagree with the cartoon, but I like the mix that the FNP carries. Just more proof that the FNP tries to be balanced.

niceund

Apparently the writer has not been watching previous aired reports of this process. This is completely partisan political play by the Democrats. When the process does not allow the defendant to actually defend himself, there is a flaw. Even criminals who are caught in the act of a crime are allowed to defend themselves. This process is nothing but a sham. Voters are watching.

gary4books

Defense happens in the Senate. Not now.

jsklinelga

Gary4

Obviously

shiftless88

Really? Please explain to us (jsk would not do so) how the defendant is being forbidden from defending himself. Has Trump asked to testify and not been allowed to? Have Republicans been barred from the proceedings? Please tell us. We read tweets every day and you think he has no voice?

Dwasserba

"Nevertheless, the process used by the House of Representatives in the closed-door hearings provided equal time for Republican members during questioning. The rules going forward are, by design, essentially the same as those used during the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, and for the latter, were vetted by a Republican House majority." Doesn't look like she misses much...

timothygaydos

Just another attempt by the liberals to throw out this president because they had a lousy candidate in 2016... they been trying to have impeachment even before he got sworn into office and especially when the "coup" did not work nor Mueller's investigation even Bobby Mueller will not stoop to that level unlike Comey and friends... it is amazing how Schiff and his cohorts are trying desperately to get traction prior to this election and fails once again. Collusion between Schiff and his staff with the fake whistleblower and now folks want us to believe this impeachment is fair and balanced... too funny! Not even near the level that Rodino had during Watergate or Newt during Clinton's. The senate will dismiss this farce and the democrats that are moderate will get caught up in the farce and lose their seats causing the House to go back to the Republicans. Then I will be watching Schiff and Nancy decide how to avoid misconduct charges similar to Feinstein holding back the letter of Ford during the Kavanaugh hearing... smells very rotten in Denmark and the sad thing is we are not in Denmark!

gary4books

The election is over. Impeachment is about job performance.

shiftless88

After years of Benghazi hearings and "email" hearings that miraculously wrapped up with no actions within a week of the 2016 election, to hear the Republicans cry "political process" is just too rich.

Dwasserba

You just forfeited all of your Danish fans

phydeaux994

Your Idol Tim

Marianne (his 2nd wife) described her "shock" at Gingrich's behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."

"He always called me at night," she recalled, "and always ended with 'I love you.' Well, she was listening."

All this happened, she said, during the same time Gingrich condemned President Bill Clinton for his lack of moral leadership.

She said Newt moved for the divorce just months after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, with her then-husband present.

"He also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress. He knew," she said.

Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer. His relationship with Marianne began while he was still married to Jackie.

awteam2000

Here are the rules and format of the impeachment hearings. Jim Jordan will replace Rick Crawford, so Jordan can question witnesses.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/11/11/public-impeachment-hearings-look-witnesses-format-and-more/H3IDZEmYsU4uUsD1xBCnGJ/story.html

phydeaux994

Jim Jordan needs to explain why he didn’t protect his athletes from a team Doctor at Ohio State who was sexually molesting his wrestlers and other athletes during the 8 years he was an assistant coach there. He holds himself in high esteem.

jsklinelga

JSO'L

"The message is that the Democrats’ impeachment process is arbitrary and completely partisan." I agree but I can see why you are upset. Media matters released a study showing that 96% of the media impeachment coverage has been negative Trump. The FNP follows most of the time but occasionally offers a different view.i Understandably you want all coverage to be negative Trump (Media matters is a progressive,non profit)

public-redux

The study to which you refer does not appear to exist on the Media Matters website. I searched their site using various keywords such as impeachment, coverage, and 96%. I also scrolled through the section called Studies. Indeed, a broader search on Google found no such study about impeachment coverage. Could you point us to the study? Thanks!

Obadiah Plainsmen

Wasn't MM it was Media Research Center.

https://www.ntd.com/study-shows-92-percent-of-media-coverage-last-month-on-trump-was-negative_339031.html

The Media and MM hate Trump, more reasons to vote for him.

public-redux

If that is jsklinelga's source, then his comment is erroneous in multiple ways. MRC isn't progressive. The study wasn't limited to impeachment stories. The study was limited to evening news on three broadcast networks, none of which were Fox News. No newspapers at all. And your link is for the month of May 2019.

It is almost like the comment was misleading.

shiftless88

public; that is so shocking that you would consider jsk to post misleading comments!! :-)

Obadiah Plainsmen

Look on the positive side the article stated 92% instead of 96%. And according to most here, Fox isn't a " news" organization. It's propaganda. Their positive reporting on Trump is irrelevant.

hayduke2

OP - what a twisted logic....

Obadiah Plainsmen

Well Hayduke since you used your usual technique of going down the insult road, I can just say thank you for the joy and comfort it brings knowing that my logic is completely opposite of a liberal. Have a blessed day. A

public-redux

shiftless, I did no such thing! I'm still waiting for him to respond.

public-redux

Obadiah, I cannot argue with logic like that.

hayduke2

OP - the twisted logic I was referring to was your statement "The Media and MM hate Trump, more reasons to vote for him." Don't see it as an insult but a valid observation.

Does " I hate liberals " translate into "more reasons to vote for them?"

jsklinelga

Public

My bad.I heard it from a reliable source, that was told it by a respected friend who learned it from am expert. I am surprised it is not true. (just kidding)

jsklinelga

"The Media Research Center (MRC) analyzed all coverage of President Trump and his administration on ABC’s “World News Tonight,” CBS" ...(96% negative Nov 12, 2019)

public-redux

Thanks for clarifying that your original comment was fake news.

Comment deleted.
gary4books

I can understand the desire to support the President. I supported President Clinton when he was impeached. But the logical conclusion if 90% of the reports are negative, is that there is good reason for that. It takes a lot of spin to conclude that the Media is not to be trusted.

threecents

Gary[thumbup][thumbup] This is like complaining about the bad press the Orioles and the Redskins got. Hello, it is not the press's fault that they lost so many games. Go Wizards!

jsklinelga

Gary4

Sophistry?? Sorry could not resist

phydeaux994

jsk, why do you support Trump?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominem criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.