Connect with us

Politics

Key Players In Trump’s Impeachment Trial

Published

on

Illustration for article titled Key Players In Trump’s Impeachment Trial

The House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on December 18, 2019, then sent those articles to the Senate for a formal trial, a process that has involved a whirlwind of figures from Congress, the legal world, and Trump’s orbit. The Onion provides a guide to the key players in Trump’s impeachment trial.


Hunter Biden:

Lovable ne’er-do-well scamp.


Ken Starr:

Trump’s defense attorney is expected to argue against statements made during the Clinton impeachment by special prosecutor Ken Starr.


Mitch McConnell:

Honestly kind of bored by this cakewalk.


Devin Nunes:

A staunch defender of the president, the Republican congressman has a deep connection to the case both as an investigator and co-conspirator.


Mitt Romney:

GOP senator considered most likely to make the loudest sigh before acquitting Trump.


Chuck Schumer:

The Senate minority leader wants to hear from witnesses in the White House, but we all want things we’ll never get.


Alan Dershowitz:

As a servant of the law, finds it impossible to sit on the sidelines while a wealthy sex predator faces consequences.


John Bolton:

Trump’s former advisor has agreed to offer explosive testimony against the president for $5 per word.


Nancy Pelosi:

The hesitant speaker of the House eventually pushed through articles of impeachment, while making it clear she never thought through any of this.


Donald Trump:

Donald Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.


Adam Schiff:

As the lead impeachment manager, there was no better choice to provide the heavy-handedness, Russia hysteria, and whiff of corruption the Democrats needed to ensure the nation tuned out.


Mrs. Wintersby:

The longtime White House maid is said to have been a witness to many of the events in question. But is she more than she seems?

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Nation’s Fact-Checkers Confirm They’ll Probably Wrap Up Evaluating Trump’s Statements By 2050 At Latest

Published

on

Illustration for article titled Nation’s Fact-Checkers Confirm They’ll Probably Wrap Up Evaluating Trump’s Statements By 2050 At Latestem/em

WASHINGTON—Explaining that they needed time to properly inform the public about instances in which the commander in chief had knowingly made false claims, the nation’s fact-checkers confirmed Tuesday that they’ll probably wrap up evaluating President Trump’s statements by 2050 at the latest. “As we’ve seen numerous times, the president has a tendency to stretch the veracity of objective fact, but we’re confident that we’ll have finished fully assessing the truthfulness of his claims within the next several decades,” said PolitiFact researcher Gregory Wu, stressing that the country’s fact-checkers wanted to take their time and thoroughly vet all declarations made by the president in order to ensure that they could compile a complete list of corrections within the next half century. “We’re working around the clock, which is why we’re currently on pace to finish fact-checking everything President Trump said during his first 100 days in office by the late 2020s. It’s crucial for us to carefully examine every word and phrase in order to determine whether the president is deliberately lying and using false information, or whether he simply misspoke or was taken out of context. By 2050, we expect to have fact-checked every one of President Trump’s public statements, interviews, state speeches, and extemporaneous remarks so that American voters can make an informed decision about the president’s relationship with the truth.” At press time, a new speech at a campaign rally by Trump had forced the fact-checkers to push back their deadline to 2075.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Midterms 2018: Gubernatorial Races To Watch

Published

on

Illustration for article titled Midterms 2018: Gubernatorial Races To Watchem/em

There are 36 governor seats up for election in the 2018 midterms, as Democrats seek to make up ground against the Republicans, who currently control two-thirds of the posts nationwide. The Onion presents a guide to the most important gubernatorial races in 2018.


Scott Walker vs. Tony Evers (Wisconsin):

Despite his lack of charisma and unpopular policies, Walker has managed to connect with Wisconsinites by spending millions of dollars on television ads.


Brian Kemp vs. Stacey Abrams (Georgia):

The Republican candidate happens to be in charge of voting in the state, and there’s nothing unusual or suspicious about that, so just stop worrying, okay?


Marc Molinaro vs. Andrew Cuomo (New York):

After a bruising primary, Republican Molinaro faces incumbent Republican Governor Cuomo.


Kim Reynolds vs. Fred Hubbell (Iowa):

The amount of time both candidates have spent in Iowa has led many pundits to speculate they may each be plotting a future presidential run.


Bruce Rauner vs. J.B. Pritzker (Illinois):

Democrat Pritzker is leading in the polls over incumbent Rauner, paving the way for Illinois’ governorship to get upgraded from a millionaire to a billionaire.


Shawn Moody vs. Janet Mills (Maine):

The country is keeping a close eye on this race in the hopes of discovering how many sexist and racist things a candidate can say before Maine elects a woman.


Kristi Noem vs. Billie Sutton (South Dakota):

Sutton is a former professional bronco rider, which may not have anything to do with governing but is nonetheless pretty badass.


Mike DeWine vs. Richard Cordray (Ohio):

As the campaign for the top spot in Ohio government heats up, the race for Ohio governor is absolutely pitting two Ohioans against each other.


Ron DeSantis vs. Andrew Gillum (Florida):

In some ways, it’s coastal Florida versus the panhandle, but in one major way, it’s a white racist versus a black guy.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Chuck Schumer Relieved He’s Never Taken Stance Meaningful Enough To Have Someone Mail Him Explosive

Published

on

Illustration for article titled Chuck Schumer Relieved He’s Never Taken Stance Meaningful Enough To Have Someone Mail Him Explosiveem/em

WASHINGTON—Following reports that incendiary devices had been sent to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George Soros, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed relief Wednesday that he has never taken a stance meaningful enough to inspire someone to mail him an explosive. “Phew, this is where constantly equivocating and avoiding any issue that’s even remotely controversial really pays off,” said Schumer (D-NY), adding that he was thankful his persistent lack of political courage had all but guaranteed no one would ever be angry enough with him to “do something crazy or violent.” “I really dodged a bullet there! Hopefully if I just keep my head down and stay focused on tacitly supporting the status quo, I’ll keep out of the line of fire.” At press time, Schumer had issued a tepid statement urging Americans to consider all sides in the matter.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending