Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks to reporters about the possibility of a partial government shutdown, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2018. Congress and President Donald Trump continue to bicker over his demand that lawmakers fund a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, pushing the government to the brink of a partial shutdown at midnight Friday. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

[/caption]

On Sunday morning, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was interviewed on ABC’s news show “This Week with George Stephanopolous.” Two main topics were discussed: (1) Democrat response to the drone attack that killed IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Kata’ib Hezbollah founder and leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis last Friday, and (2) Democrat impeachment tactics in the Senate. Schumer’s answers on the first topic were dissected and disposed of as lies here.

Before examining his answers to the second question, it should be noted that Schumer used prepared notes while giving his answers, as can be clearly seen in this picture.

Obviously, Schumer was given the questions long before his appearance on Stephanopolous’s show, which is just more proof that the legacy media are just an extension of the Democrat Party. Stephanopolous is no “journalist” after all; he was Bill Clinton’s White House Communications Director! Keep that in mind as you go through the Q&A below. Where are the tough questions? The entire Schumer segment was nothing but carefully planned Democrat agit-prop that was coordinated beforehand. Stephanopolous allowed Schumer to filibuster without pushback and asked no tough questions whatsoever. Let’s look at what Schumer said.

Stephanopolous: Let’s talk about impeachment. Where do things stand on Speaker Pelosi sending over the articles of impeachment to the Senate? Schumer: Well, look, this impeachment … lemme just take on step on just where we’re at. When these articles come over, the focus will be on four Republican senators. First, the charges as you know are grave. For the President to withhold aid so that a foreign power can interfere in our elections and benefit him is one of the things the Founding Fathers were most worried about when they wrote the Constitution. They gave Congress the ultimate power – the Senate and the House – of impeachment.

Me: “The focus will be on four Republican senators.” His first statement out of the box, and he’s outed himself as the political hack he is. That’s the first focus – not on the “evidence” from the House impeachment star chamber? He knows there’s no evidence of impeachable crimes, and he’s trying to move the goal posts. “The charges are grave.” Horse pocky! The articles voted out by House Democrats point to no crimes committed – an historical first – and are supported exclusively by hearsay testimony and the personal opinions from Democrat-picked witnesses. Then there was the endlessly-repeated Democrat narrative that President Trump was withholding aid so that a foreign power could interfere in our elections. No, that’s not what happened, as the two phone call transcripts between the two presidents clearly showed, as well as the only direct testimony given in which Gordon Sondland stated that “there was no quid pro quo.” House Democrats also suppressed exculpatory testimony by Intel Community Inspector General Atkinson, too. In addition, investigating 2016 Ukraine-Democrat corruption isn’t “interfering with our elections.” It is getting to the bottom of the corruption that Democrats and the legacy media have been feverishly trying to sweep under the rug, despite the ample evidence already in the public record of that corruption. President Trump asked for Ukrainian help in investigating what happened in 2016, which is well within his legal authority to do. The Democrats were fine with spending $30+ million to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election; surely they have no problem investigating other foreign interference in 2016 since they are so worried about the “integrity of our elections” (another of their poll-tested phrases).

Schumer continued: If we are not gonna have a fair trial … if all the facts are not going to come out … if we’re not going to hear the truth and there’s just going to be one giant coverup? Then America has changed, and the power of an over-weaning executive is far too great. McConnell will not go for a fair trial. You can’t have a fair trial without witnesses and documents, particularly those that were right at the scene of the charges.

Me: “Fair trial:” another Democrat poll-tested phrase. Never mind that the House Democrat impeachment star chamber was a one-sided farce that all objective Americans easily discerned. We’re supposed to forget that, and let the Democrats call the shots in setting up a Senate trial? Uh, no. A Senate impeachment trial is not a legal proceeding; it is entirely political and cannot be compared to a courtroom trial. The Constitution is silent on rules and procedures, which means that the majority will set the rules. Fair-minded people, including Senate Republicans, are not going to let Schumer and the Democrats embark on a fishing expedition for new information to support the nothing-burger provided by House Democrats. That’s not the way the process works, and elections have consequences.

Schumer continued: But, four Republican senators can join us. We have the ability to require votes on the four witnesses we’ve asked for, whether there’s agreement or not. We have the ability to ask for the documents. And I hope, pray, and believe there’s a decent chance that four Republicans will join us. If they do, we will have a fair trial. We don’t know what these witnesses will say. It may be exculpatory. It may be further condemning the president. But then we will let the chips fall where they may.

Me: Wishful thinking, Chuck, wishful thinking. Here he implies once again that the Senate trial is a political endeavor and seeks to put public pressure on Republican senators to buy into his fair trial lie. It’s the job of the House Democrats to provide evidence and witness testimony based on their impeachment investigation. It’s not the job of the Senate to call new witnesses and conduct an impeachment investigation; that’s the House’s job. If the Democrats want to conduct new investigations in the House and bring new articles supported by new evidence, then let them follow the Constitution and do so.

Stephanopolous: But you heard Senator — you heard Senator McConnell say that, let’s follow the Clinton example. You go for the first two weeks, have the arguments from the lawyers on both sides, and then have a vote, then consider whether to have witnesses to come forward. What is wrong with that? Schumer: Where but in “Alice in Wonderland,” do we hear all the arguments, and then maybe have the evidence, the witnesses, and the trial? That’s…

Me: That’s exactly how it went down during the Clinton impeachment hearings, Chuck.

Stephanopolous: But that was the Clinton model, though. Schumer: Well, the Clinton model is totally different. Two reasons. One, they had been heard from already. Every one of those witnesses had been heard from before. These are four witnesses who are eyewitness to the main charge against the president, that he withheld the aid for political benefit to himself.

Me: Damn straight the Clinton model was totally different – though not like you stated. There were 11 felonies associated with Clinton’s articles of impeachment and NONE referred to in the articles this time around. The new witnesses you cited should have been interviewed by the House. Period.

Stephanopolous: Mick Mulvaney, Secretary Pompeo, John Bolton, and his deputy. Schumer: It’s not Secretary Pompeo. It’s Blair, and it’s Duffey. Look what — and in the last two weeks, look what’s come out. Duffey has said, we got to hush up why he — this is in an email. We got a hush up why the president came out. And then he said, this directly came from the president. Shouldn’t that man testify? Sixty-four percent of Republicans agree. So, I am hopeful that our Republican colleagues will come forward. And I will add one thing. If they vote for witnesses, if four of them join us to get witnesses and documents, it doesn’t mean they’re going to vote to convict the president. It means we will hear all the evidence. It may, as I said, be exculpatory. It may be further condemning the president. And then the chips will fall where they may. I will tell you this. If the president is acquitted through a sham trial, through a mock trial, where there are no witnesses, where everything is covered up, that will not be — that will not stand him well with the American people, and it will not stand the Republicans with the American people.

Me: Michael Duffy’s “new documents” CONTRADICT Chuck Schumer’s claim that it is “explosive,” as noted by Redstate colleague Bonchie here. The rest is just a rehash of the fair trial nonsense and citing a Democrat media push-poll number. The Republican majority isn’t going to authorize a fishing expedition just because the Democrats in the House couldn’t make a real case for impeachment that pointed to real impeachable offenses.

Stephanopolous: You have — you have criticized Senator McConnell for working hand in glove with the White House. Here was his response on the Senate floor. (plays video of Mitch McConnell point out the hypocrisy of Schumer has been coordinating with Pelosi) Does he have a point? Schumer: No. There’s always consultation. People can discuss things. He said he’s taking his orders from the White House. I’m not taking — we Senate Democrats are not taking our orders from anybody. We have come to the view that we need the truth, and nothing but the truth, you know, Jack Webb, just the facts, man? “Dragnet”? you know, you may remember that, even though you’re younger than me. But that’s all we want. Now, is there consultation? Yes. I have never heard a Senate leader say, I’m taking my orders from the White House, I’m taking my cue, what they want. And the White House is engaged in a massive cover-up. Americans are asking, what are they afraid of? What are they afraid of?

Me: What blather and hypocrisy! He wants us to believe the he and Pelosi aren’t coordinating actions closely? Doesn’t pass the smell test, Chuck. You say consultation; I say coordination. Consultation equals coordination. Once again, the Senate impeachment trial (if there ever is one) is an entirely political process, and no one involved is untainted by political biases – in either direction. Just like you Democrats coordinated with the Clinton White House during his impeachment trial.

Stephanopolous: Do you want the articles of impeachment in the Senate this week? Schumer: Look, I think that Speaker Pelosi has done a very good job here. She has said that she will send the articles of impeachment when she believes she can — she will maximize sending them to get the fairest trial possible. If she had sent them right away, McConnell could have well just voted for dismissal the day before or after Christmas. Now, in the last two weeks, where we haven’t had the articles, lots of new evidence that bolsters our case for witnesses — for witnesses and documents has come out. That “New York Times” article which showed who was involved in the decision actually named the very four people that we had requested as witnesses. So, the bottom line is very simple. We need the truth, not a cover-up, not a sham, not to have some nationally televised mock trial where there’s no evidence.

Me: Sorry, Chuck. Pelosi doesn’t get to dictate how the Senate impeachment trial will be conducted. And, by the way, neither will you. The majority will set the rules and conduct any trial that happens accordingly – or rules may be approved that enable a quick vote to acquit without a trial since the House Democrats developed no direct evidence of impeachable crimes. There won’t be a nationally-televised “mock trial.” That’s a strawman argument that can be discarded out of hand.

Democrats rushed to approved baseless articles of impeachment in the House, and now they want Americans to ignore the blatant one-sidedness of that process while dictating how any Senate trial should be run. Not gonna happen!

The end.

Stu Cvrk served 30 years in the US Navy in a variety of active and reserve capacities, with considerable operational experience in the Middle East and the Western Pacific. An oceanographer and systems analyst through education and experience, Stu is a graduate of the US Naval Academy where he received a classical liberal education which serves as the key foundation for his political commentary. He threads daily on Twitter on a wide range of political, military, foreign policy, government, economics, and world affairs topics. Read more by Stu Cvrk