Senate Can Still Hold Impeachment Trial Even if House Does NOT Send the Articles over

[Zorro!]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

Actually the Senate has very elaborate impeachment rules that cover the receiving of charges from the managers and it takes 67 votes to approve a rule change. If the House doesn't want to actually bring charges, McConnell says he's fine with that, he doesn't really want a trial anyway.

We do know that the House isn't going to vote again until Jan 8 so clearly the claim that this was so urgent that it couldn't be left to voters is an obvious crock.

They are making a huge mess out of this, they've gotten cold feet, they are thrashing about impotently, so, what need is there for the GOP to jump in and rescue them?

 

[idb]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

Yea ignoring subpoenas and the right of the House's oversight as the Constitution requires is really showing how much you love it. Asking a foreign nation to investigate a US citizen for your own gain is really showing your love for the Constitution and America.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

Actually the Senate has very elaborate impeachment rules that cover the receiving of charges from the managers and it takes 67 votes to approve a rule change. If the House doesn't want to actually bring charges, McConnell says he's fine with that, he doesn't really want a trial anyway.

We do know that the House isn't going to vote again until Jan 8 so clearly the claim that this was so urgent that it couldn't be left to voters is an obvious crock.

They are making a huge mess out of this, they've gotten cold feet, they are thrashing about impotently, so, what need is there for the GOP to jump in and rescue them?

It's not that they are getting cold feet. It's that this was never a serious attempt to remove the President, just a political stunt. There was never a chance the Senate would convict the President on such ridiculous charges, so all of this was for nothing. They did all of this because Trump won the 2016 election. Imagine how crazy they are going to be after the 2020 election.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

I agree that to the Democrats this was nothing but a political stunt, but until now Congresses have taken their responsibility to the Constitution and the institution of the presidency seriously, that's why despite all bitter political speech, there were only two impeachments before this. If it had been purely political and partisan, Clinton would have been removed from office. What happened in the House was a repudiation of the very foundations of our government, and no one should be impartial about that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

Yea ignoring subpoenas and the right of the House's oversight as the Constitution requires is really showing how much you love it. Asking a foreign nation to investigate a US citizen for your own gain is really showing your love for the Constitution and America.

All administrations have cited executive privilege to deny Congress some things it has asked for and countries often ask other countries to cooperate in investigations. There were no serious charges, pretexts for attacking the institution of the presidency and the Constitution's separation of powers.

 

[justoffal]

But does it make sense?

Yeah I don't think they have any options left that actually do make sense. They know that the movement will die the moment it hits the Senate and they are somehow trying to change that inevitable result with some stupid unprecedented posturing. This is similar to The Walking zombies who pounded on the doors of the Senate chamber the day that Kavanaugh was confirmed hoping that somehow they could stop the inevitable. They are definitely in danger of being left in the dust completely if they don't stop the childish misbehavior.

Jo

 

[Crepitus]

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to try the impeachment, and does not require it to accept it from the House formally.

LMAO!!!

You can't really be taking that crap seriously.

Can you?

 

[Zorro!]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

Indeed. They are abusing their impeachment powers in a naked, yet futile attempt to alter the outcome of the 2020 election.

 

[Zorro!]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

Actually the Senate has very elaborate impeachment rules that cover the receiving of charges from the managers and it takes 67 votes to approve a rule change. If the House doesn't want to actually bring charges, McConnell says he's fine with that, he doesn't really want a trial anyway.

We do know that the House isn't going to vote again until Jan 8 so clearly the claim that this was so urgent that it couldn't be left to voters is an obvious crock.

They are making a huge mess out of this, they've gotten cold feet, they are thrashing about impotently, so, what need is there for the GOP to jump in and rescue them?

It's not that they are getting cold feet. It's that this was never a serious attempt to remove the President, just a political stunt. There was never a chance the Senate would convict the President on such ridiculous charges, so all of this was for nothing. They did all of this because Trump won the 2016 election. Imagine how crazy they are going to be after the 2020 election.

It sure would be nice if we took the House, but with all these retirements, I don't know.

 

[Zorro!]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

Is Chuck Schumer impartial and undecided?

 

[idb]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

Actually the Senate has very elaborate impeachment rules that cover the receiving of charges from the managers and it takes 67 votes to approve a rule change. If the House doesn't want to actually bring charges, McConnell says he's fine with that, he doesn't really want a trial anyway.

We do know that the House isn't going to vote again until Jan 8 so clearly the claim that this was so urgent that it couldn't be left to voters is an obvious crock.

They are making a huge mess out of this, they've gotten cold feet, they are thrashing about impotently, so, what need is there for the GOP to jump in and rescue them?

It's not that they are getting cold feet. It's that this was never a serious attempt to remove the President, just a political stunt. There was never a chance the Senate would convict the President on such ridiculous charges, so all of this was for nothing. They did all of this because Trump won the 2016 election. Imagine how crazy they are going to be after the 2020 election.

So...its not an attempted coup now?
Good grief it's hard to keep up!!

 

[idb]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

Indeed. They are abusing their impeachment powers in a naked, yet futile attempt to alter the outcome of the 2020 election.

So...it is an attempted coup now?
Good grief it's hard to keep up!

 

[idb]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

Is Chuck Schumer impartial and undecided?

Stick to the point.
Is impeachment a judicial process or a political one?

 

[beagle9]

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

Is Chuck Schumer impartial and undecided?

Stick to the point.
Is impeachment a judicial process or a political one?

Can be both.

 

[task0778]

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

Is Chuck Schumer impartial and undecided?

Stick to the point.
Is impeachment a judicial process or a political one?

It's a political one. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be conducted with fairness, where both sides get an equal chance to state their case, call witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. Which is part of what due process means. That doesn't mean the Dems or Repubs have to be impartial, that ain't going to happen in political processes. But at least both sides should get their say.

 

[idb]

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

Is Chuck Schumer impartial and undecided?

Stick to the point.
Is impeachment a judicial process or a political one?

It's a political one. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be conducted with fairness, where both sides get an equal chance to state their case, call witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. Which is part of what due process means. That doesn't mean the Dems or Repubs have to be impartial, that ain't going to happen in political processes. But at least both sides should get their say.

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

 

[task0778]

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

Is Chuck Schumer impartial and undecided?

Stick to the point.
Is impeachment a judicial process or a political one?

It's a political one. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be conducted with fairness, where both sides get an equal chance to state their case, call witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. Which is part of what due process means. That doesn't mean the Dems or Repubs have to be impartial, that ain't going to happen in political processes. But at least both sides should get their say.

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

In politics, if one side (Dems) perverts the process to be one-sided and in total control of the proceedings to the point where the other side (GOP) doesn't get to call their own witnesses or ask the questions they want to ask, then due process is not being followed and it ain't all that fair. I thought the Repubs did participate though.

Maybe you are referring to the President refusing to allow certain high-level administration people testify, or denying access to some documents. That's called "Executive Privilege", which every President uses when he feels necessary. Due process does not mean the Dems get to force the President to hand over everything they ask for.

PS: pols whine all the time about everything. NBD.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I find it so funny that when Trump gives congress the middle finger when they ask for documents he gets impeached for a made up charge of "obstruction of congress." When Obama gives congress the middle finger when they request documents on fast and furious, that's perfectly fine.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

Is Chuck Schumer impartial and undecided?

Stick to the point.
Is impeachment a judicial process or a political one?

It's a political one. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be conducted with fairness, where both sides get an equal chance to state their case, call witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. Which is part of what due process means. That doesn't mean the Dems or Repubs have to be impartial, that ain't going to happen in political processes. But at least both sides should get their say.

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.