Susan Collins’s willful blindness already looks awful

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
64,026
42,474
113

By
Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
Jan. 16, 2020 at 6:45 a.m. CST
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) replied yesterday to a reporter’s question about the blockbuster Lev Parnas documents handed over to the House on Tuesday. “I wonder why the House did not put that into the record and it’s only now being revealed,” she said. When told the House had just received them, she retorted, “Doesn’t that suggest that the House did an incomplete job, then?” No, and her reply should deeply concern the voters of Maine and anyone who wants a full and fair impeachment trial.

The documents, you will recall, were swept up by the FBI in the arrest of Parnas, a former associate of President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, last fall. Only earlier this month did the district court finally allow Parnas to share them with the House. The House could not get them previously. Doesn’t that suggest Collins did an incomplete job of keeping abreast of the facts?

But take a step back. Documents emerged showing that then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was under surveillance by a pack of thugs, and that a former Ukrainian prosecutor was, in effect, offering a bribe (an announcement that one of Trump’s political rivals was under investigation) for a public act (firing the ambassador).

AD
The latest Trump impeachment updates

Collins’s first reaction was not, “We need to get to the bottom of this and find out whether the president’s cohorts were spying on our ambassador!” It was not, “How in the world could the secretary of state allowed this to go on?” It was not, “Well, in a full and fair trial in the Senate, we want to get those documents.”

No, it was a right-wing talking point claiming (falsely) that the House’s inability to get evidence because of the president’s stonewalling bars such evidence from being used in a Senate trial. Collins’s notion seems to be that the surefire way to prevent Trump’s removal by the Senate is to stonewall the House. Oddly, that’s been Trump’s tactic, as well, which explains why the second article of impeachment accuses Trump of obstructing Congress.

Former prosecutor Mimi Rocah tells me, “Senator Collins is either ignorant and uninformed because she doesn’t understand or know that a federal court only just released the Parnas docs or she is just making up excuses because the documents are so damning. Either one is unacceptable and the real question she should be asking is why Trump was trying to hide them.”

AD

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) seemed to share that sentiment. He responded to Collins’s remarks on CNN Wednesday night. “If Senator Collins or other senators are interested in the documents or why they haven’t been available yet, they should turn those questions to the White House and say: ‘Why are you hiding this?’ ”

To make matters even more intriguing, Parnas, appearing on MSNBC on Wednesday night, told host Rachel Maddow, “President Trump knew exactly what was going on. He was aware of all my movements. I wouldn’t do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani, or the president. I have no intent, I have no reason to speak to any of these officials.” He went on to say that Giuliani instructed him to tell Ukraine’s president that all aid would be cut off and that Vice President Pence would not attend his inauguration unless Ukraine announced it would open an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden. He also claimed Pence was fully informed. In other words, Parnas opened up a crate of smoking guns.

Collins is reportedly considering voting for witnesses. That would presumably recognize that the Senate is obligated to hold a real trial, with witnesses and documents. No trial court judge says, “New witness available? Sorry, he didn’t come before the grand jury that indicted the defendant!” Collins’s obligation is to make sure the American people, not just Trump, get a fair trial.

AD
Indeed, what the Parnas records remind us is that the documents the administration has refused to turn over are at least as important as the witnesses, if not more so. Since each new batch of documents obtained from a witness such as Parnas or from a Freedom of Information Act request provides damning evidence against the president, one can only assume that the documents Trump and his secretary of state still won’t release contain even bigger bombshells.

Collins and other Republicans can try pointing fingers at the House, but when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) exited the Capitol on Wednesday, the House’s role was over, at least for now. The responsibility rests with the Senate to allow relevant evidence to be presented. The question is whether Collins will read from the White House script or uphold her oath. Maine voters are watching closely.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...llinss-willful-blindness-already-looks-awful/
 

ottumwan in tx

HR King
Oct 26, 2002
104,447
16,818
113
she is a communist democrat trump hater posing as an R. if you goobers cannot convince her of your scam, good luck convincing real R's
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

Rifler

HR Legend
Jan 26, 2011
21,110
15,302
113
Collin's responses are entirely understandable,... The House delivered an incomplete case to the Senate and now wants to bolster their position. If additional information was necessary to fully support a charge of impeachment it should have been collected by the House prior to their impeachment vote,... The Senate, in general, cannot be happy about this flaming bag of dog shit that House Democrats have dropped on their door step...
 

FAUlty Gator

HR Legend
Oct 27, 2017
21,627
21,924
113

By
Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
Jan. 16, 2020 at 6:45 a.m. CST
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) replied yesterday to a reporter’s question about the blockbuster Lev Parnas documents handed over to the House on Tuesday. “I wonder why the House did not put that into the record and it’s only now being revealed,” she said. When told the House had just received them, she retorted, “Doesn’t that suggest that the House did an incomplete job, then?” No, and her reply should deeply concern the voters of Maine and anyone who wants a full and fair impeachment trial.

The documents, you will recall, were swept up by the FBI in the arrest of Parnas, a former associate of President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, last fall. Only earlier this month did the district court finally allow Parnas to share them with the House. The House could not get them previously. Doesn’t that suggest Collins did an incomplete job of keeping abreast of the facts?

But take a step back. Documents emerged showing that then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was under surveillance by a pack of thugs, and that a former Ukrainian prosecutor was, in effect, offering a bribe (an announcement that one of Trump’s political rivals was under investigation) for a public act (firing the ambassador).

AD
The latest Trump impeachment updates

Collins’s first reaction was not, “We need to get to the bottom of this and find out whether the president’s cohorts were spying on our ambassador!” It was not, “How in the world could the secretary of state allowed this to go on?” It was not, “Well, in a full and fair trial in the Senate, we want to get those documents.”

No, it was a right-wing talking point claiming (falsely) that the House’s inability to get evidence because of the president’s stonewalling bars such evidence from being used in a Senate trial. Collins’s notion seems to be that the surefire way to prevent Trump’s removal by the Senate is to stonewall the House. Oddly, that’s been Trump’s tactic, as well, which explains why the second article of impeachment accuses Trump of obstructing Congress.

Former prosecutor Mimi Rocah tells me, “Senator Collins is either ignorant and uninformed because she doesn’t understand or know that a federal court only just released the Parnas docs or she is just making up excuses because the documents are so damning. Either one is unacceptable and the real question she should be asking is why Trump was trying to hide them.”

AD

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) seemed to share that sentiment. He responded to Collins’s remarks on CNN Wednesday night. “If Senator Collins or other senators are interested in the documents or why they haven’t been available yet, they should turn those questions to the White House and say: ‘Why are you hiding this?’ ”

To make matters even more intriguing, Parnas, appearing on MSNBC on Wednesday night, told host Rachel Maddow, “President Trump knew exactly what was going on. He was aware of all my movements. I wouldn’t do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani, or the president. I have no intent, I have no reason to speak to any of these officials.” He went on to say that Giuliani instructed him to tell Ukraine’s president that all aid would be cut off and that Vice President Pence would not attend his inauguration unless Ukraine announced it would open an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden. He also claimed Pence was fully informed. In other words, Parnas opened up a crate of smoking guns.

Collins is reportedly considering voting for witnesses. That would presumably recognize that the Senate is obligated to hold a real trial, with witnesses and documents. No trial court judge says, “New witness available? Sorry, he didn’t come before the grand jury that indicted the defendant!” Collins’s obligation is to make sure the American people, not just Trump, get a fair trial.

AD
Indeed, what the Parnas records remind us is that the documents the administration has refused to turn over are at least as important as the witnesses, if not more so. Since each new batch of documents obtained from a witness such as Parnas or from a Freedom of Information Act request provides damning evidence against the president, one can only assume that the documents Trump and his secretary of state still won’t release contain even bigger bombshells.

Collins and other Republicans can try pointing fingers at the House, but when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) exited the Capitol on Wednesday, the House’s role was over, at least for now. The responsibility rests with the Senate to allow relevant evidence to be presented. The question is whether Collins will read from the White House script or uphold her oath. Maine voters are watching closely.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...llinss-willful-blindness-already-looks-awful/

And Obama, who received 90% of his briefings from the newspaper, was tuned in. LOL
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
79,582
90,904
113
Collin's responses are entirely understandable,... The House delivered an incomplete case to the Senate and now wants to bolster their position. If additional information was necessary to fully support a charge of impeachment it should have been collected by the House prior to their impeachment vote,... The Senate, in general, cannot be happy about this flaming bag of dog shit that House Democrats have dropped on their door step...
How do you provide a full case when the administration refused to turn over documents and instructed aides to refuse to testify?
 

Rifler

HR Legend
Jan 26, 2011
21,110
15,302
113
How do you provide a full case when the administration refused to turn over documents and instructed aides to refuse to testify?

You take your demands for documents and witnesses to the courts,... How do you prematurely vote to impeach without first developing a full case?..
 
  • Like
Reactions: ottumwan in tx

TheCainer

HR Legend
Sep 23, 2003
21,140
13,094
113
Collin's responses are entirely understandable,... The House delivered an incomplete case to the Senate and now wants to bolster their position. If additional information was necessary to fully support a charge of impeachment it should have been collected by the House prior to their impeachment vote,... The Senate, in general, cannot be happy about this flaming bag of dog shit that House Democrats have dropped on their door step...
You should read what Ciggy posted before posting this nonsense. You sound like Senator Collins.
 

FAUlty Gator

HR Legend
Oct 27, 2017
21,627
21,924
113
Try again - this is stupid. Even from you.

You being an ignorant, delusional fool, doesn't change reality.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._abou_hillays_email_through_news_reports.html

You'll have to take your hands out of your ears and stop screaming to read about the other SEVEN times Obama said he "heard about it on the news". So...obviously, there's no chance of you learning anything. BAU

Here’s a quick look back at some other times the President has claimed innocence, as pointed out by both Bongino and former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson:

  1. Fast and Furious: When asked about the gun-running scandal that resulted in the death of border agent Brian Terry in 2010, President Obama told reporters on Oct. 11, 2011, “I heard on the news about this story, that, uh, Fast and Furious.”
  2. NSA spying on foreign leaders: President Obama said he didn’t know his administration was spying on foreign leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He told the press on Oct. 28, 2013 that, “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.”
  3. The General David Petraeus sex scandal: Petraeus, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was forced to resign in Nov. 2012 after news surfaced that he was having an affair with his biographer. The White House repeatedly refused to answer questions about when the President was finally briefed about Petraeus’ situation.
  4. The IRS’s targeting of conservative groups: President Obama told the media in May 2013 that he first learned about the IRS’s improper targeting “from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.”
  5. The Justice Department’s wiretapping of AP and Fox News reporters: When asked about the secret seizure of reporters’ phone records, Obama spokesperson Jay Carney told the media that the president “found out about the news reports, uh, yesterday on the road.”
  6. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs healthcare ‘waiting list’ scandal: The White House appeared to be in the dark about the waiting list scandal and cover-up related to medical care for the country’s military vets. Then-Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that, “We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them.”
  7. The Unauthorized Air Force One photo-op: New York City residents were panicked when, in April 2009, Air Force One — sans President Obama — flew over the Statue of Liberty for a pre-scheduled photo-op. Obama’s response: “It was something that, uh, we found out about, uh, along with all of you.”

https://ijr.com/bongino-attkisson-weigh-7-times-obama-learned-important-events-news/

But yeah...it's Susan Collins who should know more about stuff.:rolleyes:
 

MuscoHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 6, 2005
18,434
23,708
113
Collin's responses are entirely understandable,... The House delivered an incomplete case to the Senate and now wants to bolster their position. If additional information was necessary to fully support a charge of impeachment it should have been collected by the House prior to their impeachment vote,... The Senate, in general, cannot be happy about this flaming bag of dog shit that House Democrats have dropped on their door step...

Gosh, you’re right. The House absolutely should have supplied this information that they LITERALLY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO.

JFC.
 
May 27, 2010
11,819
13,421
113
Collin's responses are entirely understandable,... The House delivered an incomplete case to the Senate and now wants to bolster their position. If additional information was necessary to fully support a charge of impeachment it should have been collected by the House prior to their impeachment vote,... The Senate, in general, cannot be happy about this flaming bag of dog shit that House Democrats have dropped on their door step...

The House had more than enough evidence to confidently draw up the Articles. This just adds to the mountain of evidence and it's quite damning. I'm sure the House would love to re-convene to emphasize the additional evidence that Lev provided, but what's the point. Trump loyalists have been ignoring the facts and spinning their lies before the process even started, more damning evidence isn't going to change their deluded opinions. The entire Republican Senate should be impeached for lawlessness and dereliction of duty if they don't find Trump at fault.
 

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
24,961
49,114
113
You being an ignorant, delusional fool, doesn't change reality.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._abou_hillays_email_through_news_reports.html

You'll have to take your hands out of your ears and stop screaming to read about the other SEVEN times Obama said he "heard about it on the news". So...obviously, there's no chance of you learning anything. BAU

Here’s a quick look back at some other times the President has claimed innocence, as pointed out by both Bongino and former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson:

  1. Fast and Furious: When asked about the gun-running scandal that resulted in the death of border agent Brian Terry in 2010, President Obama told reporters on Oct. 11, 2011, “I heard on the news about this story, that, uh, Fast and Furious.”
  2. NSA spying on foreign leaders: President Obama said he didn’t know his administration was spying on foreign leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He told the press on Oct. 28, 2013 that, “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.”
  3. The General David Petraeus sex scandal: Petraeus, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was forced to resign in Nov. 2012 after news surfaced that he was having an affair with his biographer. The White House repeatedly refused to answer questions about when the President was finally briefed about Petraeus’ situation.
  4. The IRS’s targeting of conservative groups: President Obama told the media in May 2013 that he first learned about the IRS’s improper targeting “from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.”
  5. The Justice Department’s wiretapping of AP and Fox News reporters: When asked about the secret seizure of reporters’ phone records, Obama spokesperson Jay Carney told the media that the president “found out about the news reports, uh, yesterday on the road.”
  6. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs healthcare ‘waiting list’ scandal: The White House appeared to be in the dark about the waiting list scandal and cover-up related to medical care for the country’s military vets. Then-Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that, “We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them.”
  7. The Unauthorized Air Force One photo-op: New York City residents were panicked when, in April 2009, Air Force One — sans President Obama — flew over the Statue of Liberty for a pre-scheduled photo-op. Obama’s response: “It was something that, uh, we found out about, uh, along with all of you.”

https://ijr.com/bongino-attkisson-weigh-7-times-obama-learned-important-events-news/

But yeah...it's Susan Collins who should know more about stuff.:rolleyes:

Wow, you showed me. He said 7 times that he heard news from the press? Amazing. Sure, he got the PDB six days a week from the CIA, but you're right 90% of his info came from the news...
 

damayason

All-Conference
Feb 27, 2012
470
923
93
You take your demands for documents and witnesses to the courts,... How do you prematurely vote to impeach without first developing a full case?..

They believe they have a full case. And for the record, I agree with them. I would hope the senate would investigate new leads as new evidence and witnesses emerge.
 

Hawkeye009

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Mar 2, 2003
8,870
3,505
113
You take your demands for documents and witnesses to the courts,... How do you prematurely vote to impeach without first developing a full case?..

it isn't clear that the courts would even get involved in this type of inter-branch dispute, BUT.... Finding additional evidence doesn't mean the prior evidence was insufficient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

FAUlty Gator

HR Legend
Oct 27, 2017
21,627
21,924
113
Wow, you showed me. He said 7 times that he heard news from the press? Amazing. Sure, he got the PDB six days a week from the CIA, but you're right 90% of his info came from the news...

You're right. 8 times Obama did something much more out of touch than Collins just did that's giving deplorables on the left the vapors. Of course, back then and still, what Obama did was totally fine. Now? From a minor player on the hill? a threadworthy travesty.
 

BlackNGoldBleeder

HR Legend
Jun 23, 2017
31,003
49,188
113
You being an ignorant, delusional fool, doesn't change reality.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._abou_hillays_email_through_news_reports.html

You'll have to take your hands out of your ears and stop screaming to read about the other SEVEN times Obama said he "heard about it on the news". So...obviously, there's no chance of you learning anything. BAU

Here’s a quick look back at some other times the President has claimed innocence, as pointed out by both Bongino and former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson:

  1. Fast and Furious: When asked about the gun-running scandal that resulted in the death of border agent Brian Terry in 2010, President Obama told reporters on Oct. 11, 2011, “I heard on the news about this story, that, uh, Fast and Furious.”
  2. NSA spying on foreign leaders: President Obama said he didn’t know his administration was spying on foreign leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He told the press on Oct. 28, 2013 that, “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.”
  3. The General David Petraeus sex scandal: Petraeus, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was forced to resign in Nov. 2012 after news surfaced that he was having an affair with his biographer. The White House repeatedly refused to answer questions about when the President was finally briefed about Petraeus’ situation.
  4. The IRS’s targeting of conservative groups: President Obama told the media in May 2013 that he first learned about the IRS’s improper targeting “from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.”
  5. The Justice Department’s wiretapping of AP and Fox News reporters: When asked about the secret seizure of reporters’ phone records, Obama spokesperson Jay Carney told the media that the president “found out about the news reports, uh, yesterday on the road.”
  6. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs healthcare ‘waiting list’ scandal: The White House appeared to be in the dark about the waiting list scandal and cover-up related to medical care for the country’s military vets. Then-Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that, “We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them.”
  7. The Unauthorized Air Force One photo-op: New York City residents were panicked when, in April 2009, Air Force One — sans President Obama — flew over the Statue of Liberty for a pre-scheduled photo-op. Obama’s response: “It was something that, uh, we found out about, uh, along with all of you.”

https://ijr.com/bongino-attkisson-weigh-7-times-obama-learned-important-events-news/

But yeah...it's Susan Collins who should know more about stuff.:rolleyes:

So you believe this supports your claim that Obama "received 90% of his briefings from the newspaper"?

JFC
 

Rifler

HR Legend
Jan 26, 2011
21,110
15,302
113
Gosh, you’re right. The House absolutely should have supplied this information that they LITERALLY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO.

JFC

I understand that the House didn't have this yet,.. so what did they base their impeachment vote on?,... The problem I have is House Democrats voting for impeachment, on the come, with an inadequate case,... The Senate should throw this whole thing back to the House and tell them to come back when their homework is done...JFC.
 

ThorneStockton

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2009
21,985
29,303
113
I understand that the House didn't have this yet,.. so what did they base their impeachment vote on?,... The problem I have is House Democrats voting for impeachment, on the come, with an inadequate case,... The Senate should throw this whole thing back to the House and tell them to come back when their homework is done...JFC.

What is.... your issue with... the idea that.... the House had a sufficient case to impeach.... and are now wishing to add on..... additional evidence.... to consider...?
 
May 27, 2010
11,819
13,421
113
Then live by them...

They may have to, but I'm no legal expert. But if it's actually a trial, doesn't the process allow for admittance of new evidence when it comes to light? If it does not, then maybe it's not actually a trial at all. Mitch has been adamant that he does not intend to take the trial seriously.
 
Last edited:

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
24,961
49,114
113
You're right. 8 times Obama did something much more out of touch than Collins just did that's giving deplorables on the left the vapors. Of course, back then and still, what Obama did was totally fine. Now? From a minor player on the hill? a threadworthy travesty.
Again, wildly stupid, even for you. No one is upset that Collins quoted a newspaper. People are upset because she's playing stupid. She knows why the information wasn't available until this week, she was complicit in that. She's trying to play both sides and no one is buying that shit anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

FAUlty Gator

HR Legend
Oct 27, 2017
21,627
21,924
113
Again, wildly stupid, even for you. No one is upset that Collins quoted a newspaper. People are upset because she's playing stupid. She knows why the information wasn't available until this week, she was complicit in that. She's trying to play both sides and no one is buying that shit anymore.

Oh...as opposed to knowing and claiming you're ignorant to avoid having to answer the questions...like Obama did. Gotcha. My bad. Obama was just a liar, afraid to answer questions or plain ignorant. Of course. Thanks for the clarifications.
 

Rifler

HR Legend
Jan 26, 2011
21,110
15,302
113
They may have to, but I'm no legal expert. But if it's actually a trial, doesn't the process allow for admittance of new evidence when ti comes to light? If it does not, then maybe it's not actually a trial at all. Mitch has been adamant that he does not intend to take the trial seriously.

It's my understanding that everything will be driven by the trial rules that are yet to be developed and approved by a majority of votes in the Senate...
 

Rifler

HR Legend
Jan 26, 2011
21,110
15,302
113
I'd prefer my elected officials consider all relevant evidence, whether new or not. Why wouldn't they?

It's going to depend on how they structure the rules,... All the Senate is required to do is try the case as delivered..
 

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
24,961
49,114
113
Oh...as opposed to knowing and claiming you're ignorant to avoid having to answer the questions...like Obama did. Gotcha. My bad. Obama was just a liar, afraid to answer questions or plain ignorant. Of course. Thanks for the clarifications.
Again, you're just being ridiculous. But that's your thing. First, half your list wasn't even about Obama, but "White House". But let's get to the meat of it - did Obama ever lie. Yes, I'm sure he did. Does that make what Collins said any less reprehensible? No. Does it make your post any less stupid? Not by a long shot.
 

SoFla-Hawkeye

HR Heisman
Nov 12, 2001
6,272
7,250
113
I understand that the House didn't have this yet,.. so what did they base their impeachment vote on?,... The problem I have is House Democrats voting for impeachment, on the come, with an inadequate case,... The Senate should throw this whole thing back to the House and tell them to come back when their homework is done...JFC.

So a felon is found with a gun. He is arrested and charged with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. In the course of completing their investigation it is determined that the gun had been used in a murder. Using your logic they should not charge him with murder because they didn't do it upon charging him with illegal possession of a firearm. Special world in which you live.
 

ottumwan in tx

HR King
Oct 26, 2002
104,447
16,818
113
So a felon is found with a gun. He is arrested and charged with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. In the course of completing their investigation it is determined that the gun had been used in a murder. Using your logic they should not charge him with murder because they didn't do it upon charging him with illegal possession of a firearm. Special world in which you live.
trump was not a criminal found with anything. Pelosi just made it all up

trump was warning dudes of the criminal biden
 

ottumwan in tx

HR King
Oct 26, 2002
104,447
16,818
113
I'd prefer my elected officials consider all relevant evidence, whether new or not. Why wouldn't they?
yes, consider the evidence that biden was a criminal and trump was warning them of it over in Ukraine. consider a Ukraine plane has since come down
 

Rifler

HR Legend
Jan 26, 2011
21,110
15,302
113
So a felon is found with a gun. He is arrested and charged with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. In the course of completing their investigation it is determined that the gun had been used in a murder. Using your logic they should not charge him with murder because they didn't do it upon charging him with illegal possession of a firearm. Special world in which you live.

No, not at all,.. In your example this individual should be tried and convicted for possession of the firearm. He should then be investigated and potentially charged, tried and convicted for the murder,.. The court should not be expected develop a murder case in the middle of a firearm possession trial... The House needs to simply do their phucking job here.