Schumer said he wasn't impartial juror...

[Cow Poke]

Schumer said in 1999 Senate wasn't like a jury box and was 'susceptible to the whims of politics'

For my liberal friends who are getting the vapors over 'Moscow Mitch" saying he wasn't going to be impartial and (gasp) is "violating his oath"....

(CNN)Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has blasted his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell in recent days after he described himself as "not an impartial juror" ahead of President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial, but Schumer himself repeatedly expressed similar sentiments in the late 1990s when senators weighed the removal of President Bill Clinton.

Schumer's past comments are the latest example of how lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are having to confront their prior positions on impeachment that appear to conflict with their present-day statements.

In recent days, Schumer has slammed McConnell ahead of Trump's trial, saing he was "utterly amazed" by McConnell describing himself as not impartial.

"Let the American people hear it loud and clear, the Republican leader said, proudly, 'I'm not an impartial juror. I'm not impartial about this at all.' That is an astonishing admission of partisanship," Schumer said in a floor speech.

But in several appearances on television in 1998 and 1999 reviewed by CNN's KFile, Schumer noted that senators had previously formed opinions heading into the trial and that the Senate was "not like a jury box." Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 after saying during his campaign that a vote for him would be a vote to not impeach Clinton.

A spokesman for Schumer told CNN in an email on Friday that his statements came after the conclusion of the Starr investigation.

"These quotes all came after the Starr investigation, which included testimony from key witnesses including President Clinton, had concluded and been made public for months and as Sen. Schumer was in the anomalous position of having already voted on impeachment in both the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor," his spokesman said. "As is reflected in these quotes, Schumer believed then and still believes now that all of the facts must be allowed to come out and then a decision can be made -- in stark contrast to the Republicans today in both the House and Senate who have worked to prevent all the facts and evidence from coming out."

[Sam]

Not acceptable, even given Schumer's unique position in '98/'99. You know you're going to take an oath, you adhere to that oath.

Also not terribly relevant to the criticism of McConnell and Graham. Both Graham, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and McConnell, as majority leader, control the format of the Senate trial whereas Schumer then did not. No one is imagining that either McConnell or Graham will vote to acquit Trump -- what they are complaining about is that they will game the rules of the Senate trial in such a way to assist Trump.

For example, the Senate trial in '99 allowed for witnesses in videotaped depositions. Both Graham and McConnell have made clear they do not intend to allow witness testimony in Trump's trial.

--Sam

[rogue06]

Schumer said in 1999 Senate wasn't like a jury box and was 'susceptible to the whims of politics'

For my liberal friends who are getting the vapors over 'Moscow Mitch" saying he wasn't going to be impartial and (gasp) is "violating his oath"....

(CNN)Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has blasted his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell in recent days after he described himself as "not an impartial juror" ahead of President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial, but Schumer himself repeatedly expressed similar sentiments in the late 1990s when senators weighed the removal of President Bill Clinton.

Schumer's past comments are the latest example of how lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are having to confront their prior positions on impeachment that appear to conflict with their present-day statements.

In recent days, Schumer has slammed McConnell ahead of Trump's trial, saing he was "utterly amazed" by McConnell describing himself as not impartial.

"Let the American people hear it loud and clear, the Republican leader said, proudly, 'I'm not an impartial juror. I'm not impartial about this at all.' That is an astonishing admission of partisanship," Schumer said in a floor speech.

But in several appearances on television in 1998 and 1999 reviewed by CNN's KFile, Schumer noted that senators had previously formed opinions heading into the trial and that the Senate was "not like a jury box." Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 after saying during his campaign that a vote for him would be a vote to not impeach Clinton.

A spokesman for Schumer told CNN in an email on Friday that his statements came after the conclusion of the Starr investigation.

"These quotes all came after the Starr investigation, which included testimony from key witnesses including President Clinton, had concluded and been made public for months and as Sen. Schumer was in the anomalous position of having already voted on impeachment in both the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor," his spokesman said. "As is reflected in these quotes, Schumer believed then and still believes now that all of the facts must be allowed to come out and then a decision can be made -- in stark contrast to the Republicans today in both the House and Senate who have worked to prevent all the facts and evidence from coming out."

IIRC several Democrats were quite boastful of how they had made up their minds about impeachment long before it reached the Senate and openly campaigned their Republican candidates to vote for acquittal but we're only hearing about Schumer given his position and recent remarks.

[Cow Poke]

Not acceptable...

Sure, Sam.

[Cow Poke]

...what they are complaining about is that they will game the rules of the Senate trial in such a way to assist Trump...

You mean like the Democrats gamed the rules of the House in order to impeach Trump? But now, of course, the Democrats are pitching a little tantrum and withholding the Articles because they ALSO want to game the rules of the Senate.

That's hot how life works, Sam.

[Mountain Man]

IIRC several Democrats were quite boastful of how they had made up their minds about impeachment long before it reached the Senate and openly campaigned their Republican candidates to vote for acquittal but we're only hearing about Schumer given his position and recent remarks.

Yep. Several of the current Democrat candidates seeking the presidential nomination have already said they will be voting to convict Trump even though their colleagues in the House are insisting that we still don't have all the facts!

[Sam]

Sure, Sam.

Sorry, I thought for a minute that you were pitching for honest responses to this, not the same kind of deflection and denial that y'all typically engage in.

It's telling, in its own way, how your "liberal friends" don't seem to be allowed to hold a consistent criticism that crosses partisan lines. It's like you can't even imagine a non-partisan response.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

Sorry, I thought for a minute that you were pitching for honest responses to this, not the same kind of deflection and denial that y'all typically engage in.

It's telling, in its own way, how your "liberal friends" don't seem to be allowed to hold a consistent criticism that crosses partisan lines. It's like you can't even imagine a non-partisan response.

--Sam

You’re not ‘non partisan’, so stop pretending you are.

[Cow Poke]

Sorry, I thought for a minute that you were pitching for honest responses to this, not the same kind of deflection and denial that y'all typically engage in.

Honest responses, sure, not one-sided partisan ones. But you're free to post all you want!

It's telling, in its own way, how your "liberal friends" don't seem to be allowed to hold a consistent criticism that crosses partisan lines. It's like you can't even imagine a non-partisan response.

--Sam

Nobody's stopping you from posting, Sam, but I don't have to buy what you're selling.

I really think this is part of your "I'm so smart everybody should take everything I say as gospel".

[Sam]

Honest responses, sure, not one-sided partisan ones. But you're free to post all you want!



Nobody's stopping you from posting, Sam, but I don't have to buy what you're selling.

I really think this is part of your "I'm so smart everybody should take everything I say as gospel".

What part of my post could be considered partisan? The first paragraph where I said that Schumer's past behavior was unacceptable or the second paragraph where I outlined the primary distinction that Schumer in '99, unlike Graham and McConnell in '20, was not setting the rules of the Senate trial?

Help a guy out, here.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

What part of my post could be considered partisan? The first paragraph where I said that Schumer's past behavior was unacceptable or the second paragraph where I outlined the primary distinction that Schumer in '99, unlike Graham and McConnell in '20, was not setting the rules of the Senate trial?

Help a guy out, here.

--Sam

Go Democrats!

[Sam]

Go Democrats!

Welp, I think that'll do. We've all shown our cards and played our hands and everyone can look and see who's acting like a partisan and who's acting like a reasonable person.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Welp, I think that'll do. We've all shown our cards and played our hands and everyone can look and see who's acting like a partisan and who's acting like a reasonable person.

--Sam

You do amuse me, that's for sure.

[Sparko]

[Mountain Man]

What I'm getting from this is that if everybody was consistent with their previous positions, then Republicans would be in favor of impeaching President Trump, and Democrats would be staunchly opposed.