Give Nancy Pelosi this: She has chutzpah. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell responded Friday on the Senate floor to the House’s refusal to appoint managers and transmit its articles of impeachment against President Trump to the upper chamber. “For now,” Mr. McConnell said, “we are content to continue the ordinary business of the Senate while House Democrats continue to flounder. For now.”
Mrs. Pelosi’s response: “The GOP Senate must immediately proceed in a manner worthy of the Constitution.” Never mind that the hold-up...
opinion DavidRivkin I like it. Wait until the summer and then acquit with or without the monkey report.
opinion DavidRivkin I love the WSJ bot much of what they publish as opinion is garbage.
opinion DavidRivkin LongLiveTrump !
opinion DavidRivkin You are always on the wrong side of everything!
opinion DavidRivkin I think it’s safe to say Murdoch doesn’t have history majors editing the WSJ edit pages.
opinion DavidRivkin Evidence is overwhelming. Needs to go to an unbiased court.
opinion DavidRivkin The hold up is you have the Senate majority leader on tape saying he is coordinating with the defendent and wants to proceed without calling witnesses anyway. So you are suggesting to give the corrupt leader exactly what he wants?
opinion DavidRivkin In other words, Republicans have prejudged a trial and will acquit without any evidence that might implicate the accused. All of our trials should be so efficient! You're wealthy-innocent. You're poor or nonwhite-guilty. Easy Peasy!
opinion DavidRivkin It don’t work THAT way... Trump gonna have to wait....
opinion DavidRivkin The number of people who didn't read this article yet STILL wanna comment like they're all con-lawyerly is adorable.
opinion DavidRivkin This is embarrassing,
opinion DavidRivkin To be honest I thought WSJ were totally left. Balanced article. Agree with your article but you are going to catch Hell.
opinion DavidRivkin But McConnell, Graham, and the rest of the GOP Senatorial syncjophants don’t want to hear evidence.
opinion DavidRivkin They weren't going to hear additional evidence in any case, as the Presidents own defenders w/ first hand knowledge are not being allowed to testify under oath. If they could exonerate him why won't Mitch O'Connell allow them to testify. Pretty much only one conclusion to draw.
opinion DavidRivkin We Americans WANT a fair trial! Let more witnesses (who were blocked before) now be heard.
opinion DavidRivkin What hogwash. Can't believe how bad your paper has become since Murdoch bought it.
opinion DavidRivkin The Senate can not have a trial without the articles in their possession.
opinion DavidRivkin You Wish.
opinion DavidRivkin Just Do it!
opinion DavidRivkin Business paper?
opinion DavidRivkin 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
opinion DavidRivkin Unfollowing, which is a shame because your non-political content is decent, but I'm not interested in seeing your garbage opinion and editorial pieces on my timeline.
opinion DavidRivkin It's not a strictly legal matter. Seriously, did you not pay attention to the hearings?!?
opinion DavidRivkin Does recruit it’s writers from a headstart program ?
opinion DavidRivkin Bull shit.
opinion DavidRivkin These editorials at the WSJ are something else 😭🤣😭. Every time. At least try to make some sense sometimes.
opinion DavidRivkin More proof that in the Kingdom of Trump aka America Democracy is dead.
opinion DavidRivkin DavidRivkin looking to replace KimStrassel for worst takes by opinion
opinion DavidRivkin A Republican congressmen have allowed Trump to take gifts from foreign countries, enrich himself at the expense of American tax payers, reject congress authority to subpoena documents and witnesses and now aid and abet a cover up of Trump's criminal activity
opinion DavidRivkin Didn't expect less from a guy who describe himself as 'leading conservative thinker'.
opinion DavidRivkin The senate majority leader is in no way, interested in pursuing facts; seeking truth or obtaining justice. He has stated so publicly. The evidence of the president's guilt is substantial and compelling. But not greater that GoP loyalty to party.
opinion DavidRivkin I used to think the WSJ was worth reading. Printing an opinion like that makes me believe otherwise
opinion DavidRivkin Bolton is willing to talk now.
opinion DavidRivkin Mitch isn't going to have any evidence presented anyway. Donald has promised him a warm cheeseburger to make love to.
opinion DavidRivkin If the glove doesnt fit, you must acquit - Morgan Freeman
opinion DavidRivkin Proposing an unconstitutional action demeans the Wall Street Journal.
opinion DavidRivkin it’s pretty clear in our constitution that the House Is only one to impeac& the Senate conducts the trial. There is no timetable stated in the Constitution. The Senate who must remain neutral has already stated it’s going to acquit & coordinate. So the Senate is breaking the law
opinion DavidRivkin Dump your subscription to this hunk of crap. I did. Very liberating!
opinion DavidRivkin Oh f that.
opinion DavidRivkin Do nothing dems and a waste of taxpayer money.
opinion DavidRivkin Iran will not care one way or the other. They want him pushing up daisy.
opinion DavidRivkin Remember when the WSJ used to be a business paper?
opinion DavidRivkin The Senate must move forward to Acquit. The Congress has failed to submit the articles of impeachment and it is time to end this. I would ask that the Senate also condemn the Congress for it's attack on the constitution.
opinion DavidRivkin Classic Republican BS Accused of a crime - refuse to investigate the crime - “find no evidence” of a crime - “we must acquit because there’s no evidence” If police departments ran investigations like republicans, murder would be legal
opinion DavidRivkin Trump and the Confederate Senate; Corruption in high office. 🇺🇸
opinion DavidRivkin Ummm.... Key witnesses were not allowed to testify in front of the relevant House committees. They should testify in the Senate trial. Do ordinary criminal trials limit the evidence made available to jurors to that which was presented to the Grand Jury? No!
opinion DavidRivkin That would be as unconstitutional as hell, and you know it.
opinion DavidRivkin Yeah, that sounds totally constitutional.
opinion DavidRivkin 🙌👏🙂
opinion DavidRivkin Try to be patriotic. Just give it a try. You might like it.
opinion DavidRivkin Please... Paid by Trump for story?
opinion DavidRivkin So it is okay with you that trump broke the law and then lied about it and then would not allow anyone to testify.
opinion DavidRivkin This is a garbage opinion completely at odds with established law.
opinion DavidRivkin lol the GOP is so worried about a trial that they’re willing to risk political suicide by shredding the Constitution, thereby giving the Dems all the political ammo they’ll ever need.
opinion DavidRivkin You can’t! Give us real news
opinion DavidRivkin Oh, WSJ Opinion staff, you are our little propagandists hiding behind what used to be a respected name in journalism. Pelosi is playing Trump and bringing his dementia into the foreground by driving him nuts with anticipation. The Impeachment is done, the trial is coming.
opinion DavidRivkin MR TRUMP'S SAVIOUR
opinion DavidRivkin The senate does so at their peril
opinion DavidRivkin The House is not going to pursue it, it's a political party.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »
Source: CNN - 🏆 4. / 95 Read more »