Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Your link cites "suspected" not proven for Biden however by not allowing witnesses it seems Trump is guilty.

Interesting that the sorts of people who regularly bleat on about how "innocent people have nothing to hide" when we're discussing police surveillance and judicial overreach are all suddenly very quiet.

 

[Watchmen]

Democratic senators tweet photos of pile of House-passed bills 'dead on Mitch McConnell's desk'
The House-passed bills that have ended up in the Senate 'graveyard'
Mitch McConnell's blockade of House legislation is about to face its toughest test - CNNPolitics
Nearly halfway through the year, Congress has only passed 17 laws
Here's the House gun control legislation Mitch McConnell refuses to take up in the Senate after the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton

Passing bills that will be dead on arrival is meaningless. I’m looking for bipartisan effort.

 

[England my lionheart]

Nah. It was never gunna amount to anything. The whole thing was a pretty hollow exercise on the Dem's part. I'm not sure whether to be sorry for or bemused by all the terribly earnest "Impeach!" types who really thought anything would come of it. The Dems only credible shot at ousting Trump has always been the 2020 election, and they seem pretty desperate to repeat the same mistakes as last time and lose that, so, you know, here we are...

I saw something on the BBC about Bolton opening up and his book release,not sure that will make a difference,from what I've seen of the Dems so far is they don't seem to have much of a contender,nobody that shines but hey what do I know.

 

[England my lionheart]

Interesting that the sorts of people who regularly bleat on about how "innocent people have nothing to hide" when we're discussing police surveillance and judicial overreach are all suddenly very quiet.

As a spectator it's really interesting how all this has panned out but it's not over till the fat lady sings.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Passing bills that will be dead on arrival is meaningless. I’m looking for bipartisan effort.

There was actually some bipartisan effort.
Your claim, that I was responding to, was this, "It’s be nice if the House actually did some legislating."

They answer is that they have.

In case you've failed to notice though, the problem is that no matter what is passed is stopped in it's tracks once it reaches McConnell's desk. So your complaints about the House doing nothing are misplaced. The blame lies with McConnell.

 

[Watchmen]

There was actually some bipartisan effort.
Your claim, that I was responding to, was this, "It’s be nice if the House actually did some legislating."

They answer is that they have.

In case you've failed to notice though, the problem is that no matter what is passed is stopped in it's tracks once it reaches McConnell's desk. So your complaints about the House doing nothing are misplaced. The blame lies with McConnell.

The blame lies with both. The House for knowingly sending bills that will be dead in arrival. McConnell for not reaching across the aisle or making any effort to compromise.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The blame lies with both. The House for knowingly sending bills that will be dead in arrival. McConnell for not reaching across the aisle or making any effort to compromise.

Uh huh. Except that they did send some bipartisan bills as well. It seems you'd be complaining no matter what. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

So your position is that the Democratic House should only legislate bills that Senate Republicans will support, thereby looking out for Republicans' constituents' instead of their own? How does that make sense?

 

[Watchmen]

Uh huh. Except that they did send some bipartisan bills as well. It seems you'd be complaining no matter what. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

So your position is that the Democratic House should only legislate bills that Senate Republicans will support, thereby looking out for Republicans' constituents' instead of their own? How does that make sense?

Nope. That’s not my position. Is it your position that the House is blameless and blame lies only with McConnell?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nope. That’s not my position. Is it your position that the House is blameless and blame lies only with McConnell?

What's your position, then?

I blame McConnell.

"In the struggle between Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Democratic-controlled House, the immovable object may finally have met an irresistible force.

McConnell has been the immovable object: He's frustrated House Democrats by systematically blocking Senate votes so far on the lengthening list of bills they have passed, from gun control to additional protections for patients with preexisting health problems.
RELATED: Murkowski joins McConnell's opposition to election security proposals, setting up clash with House
But McConnell's blockade faces a new challenge as the House turns to a series of bills meant to fight foreign interference in the 2020 election. Those measures, aimed at defending fundamental American institutions from foreign subversion, may be tougher for the Kentucky Republican to portray as partisan overreach than the bills the House has passed so far. And that could make them an irresistible force that strains his overall strategy of preventing action on any House legislation.

"It could be the thing that has the public home in on where the problem is, where the obstruction is," says Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland, a leading author of the House election security agenda. "The public, and I understand that, they paint everything with a broad brush and they say Washington is dysfunctional. Here's a case study that they are going to be very interested in, that shows ... the problem is not with Washington, the problem is not broadly with Congress, the problem is with Mitch McConnell, who will not bring any of these things to the Senate floor."

McConnell's decision to methodically bar consideration of any of the House priorities already looms as a defining gamble in the GOP's effort to maintain its Senate majority in next year's election. He has leaned into his role as obstacle, portraying a Republican-controlled Senate as the last line of defense against a Democratic "socialist agenda" and calling himself the "Grim Reaper" for their legislative plans.

"I am indeed the 'Grim Reaper' when it comes to the socialist agenda that they have been ginning up over the House with overwhelming Democratic support, and sending it over to America," he declared in an interview on Fox News Channel last week. "Things that would turn us into a country we have never been." McConnell's campaign is even providing contributors with T-shirts featuring a tombstone for "socialism" on the front and a similar quote underscoring his determination to block the House agenda on the back."

He won't even consider legislation that the majority of Americans want, because like some resident posters here, he's fixated on big, bad socialism.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What's your position, then?

I blame McConnell.

"In the struggle between Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Democratic-controlled House, the immovable object may finally have met an irresistible force.

McConnell has been the immovable object: He's frustrated House Democrats by systematically blocking Senate votes so far on the lengthening list of bills they have passed, from gun control to additional protections for patients with preexisting health problems.
RELATED: Murkowski joins McConnell's opposition to election security proposals, setting up clash with House
But McConnell's blockade faces a new challenge as the House turns to a series of bills meant to fight foreign interference in the 2020 election. Those measures, aimed at defending fundamental American institutions from foreign subversion, may be tougher for the Kentucky Republican to portray as partisan overreach than the bills the House has passed so far. And that could make them an irresistible force that strains his overall strategy of preventing action on any House legislation.

"It could be the thing that has the public home in on where the problem is, where the obstruction is," says Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland, a leading author of the House election security agenda. "The public, and I understand that, they paint everything with a broad brush and they say Washington is dysfunctional. Here's a case study that they are going to be very interested in, that shows ... the problem is not with Washington, the problem is not broadly with Congress, the problem is with Mitch McConnell, who will not bring any of these things to the Senate floor."
McConnell's decision to methodically bar consideration of any of the House priorities already looms as a defining gamble in the GOP's effort to maintain its Senate majority in next year's election. He has leaned into his role as obstacle, portraying a Republican-controlled Senate as the last line of defense against a Democratic "socialist agenda" and calling himself the "Grim Reaper" for their legislative plans.
"I am indeed the 'Grim Reaper' when it comes to the socialist agenda that they have been ginning up over the House with overwhelming Democratic support, and sending it over to America," he declared in an interview on Fox News Channel last week. "Things that would turn us into a country we have never been." McConnell's campaign is even providing contributors with T-shirts featuring a tombstone for "socialism" on the front and a similar quote underscoring his determination to block the House agenda on the back."

He won't even consider legislation that the majority of Americans want, because like some resident posters here, he's fixated on big, bad socialism.

It’s one thing for McConnell to oppose legislation he disagreed with.

But to have as a strategy, preventing the Senate from even considering ANY legislation?

Is it normal for the Senate controlled by one party to be so heavy handed in *considering* bills from a House controlled by the other party?