Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that makes it hearsay, not proof, that has not been cross examined by the defense.
There's been no trial. And it's clear the Democrats are scared to have one.
Do you not want to hear testimony from witnesses that have been prevented from testifying by president Trump?
Doesn't that make you wonder what this administration is afraid of?
I want to hear from everyone that could help us decide what the truth is.
Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
And that makes it hearsay, not proof, that has not been cross examined by the defense.
There's been no trial. And it's clear the Democrats are scared to have one.
No matter how many times you, or anyone else says this, it doesn't make it true.
1. Nancy is not scared, she has (correctly) stated that she will send the articles over as soon as Mitch agrees to quit subverting the constitution. THe problem is not that she's scared, it's that Mitch said he will let the accused (Trump Admin) call the shots on the trial. That is not right. Mitch has said he will not allow critical witnesses (at the pleasure of the accused), that is not right. She is simply stating that the rules of engagement should be determined BEFORE the trial starts. That's actually pretty generous, because it removes leverage from all sides, and sets up for a fair trial.
2. Bigger issue: Why doesn't Trump just let Bolton and Moulvany and the other two testify. If he does, it totally removes one of the articles; 'obstruction of congress', and if he's innocent, like he claims, their testimony would only vindicate him.
Think about this WK, or any blind Trump-supporters: Why would he want to obstruct the testimony of people who were there, and saw it all. If he's telling the truth, he would be begging to have them testify.
What a crap-show this whole thing has turned out to be. And I'm not proud of the way EITHER side has handled it. It's partisan up one side and down the other.
Do you not want to hear testimony from witnesses that have been prevented from testifying by president Trump?
Doesn't that make you wonder what this administration is afraid of?
I want to hear from everyone that could help us decide what the truth is.
Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
Again for the 48th time... They were not prevented from Testifying.
Schiff / Nadler just did not want to go court and force them to testify. They knew they would lose due to Executive Privilege.
Nancy thinks she has a solid case. No more witnesses are needed.
This still doesn't prove a damn thing. INTENT has to be proven.
He could have called for it to be pulled five minutes after the call and it would not have mattered.
At the end of the day, there are still no witnesses saying they heard demands of a quid pro quo, and the Ukrainians themselves are saying that there were none. So, snake eyes for the Dems.
Perhaps because the most important witnesses have been instructed to keep their mouths shut.
I suspect that Republican Congressmen and Senators have many family members employed in government jobs which makes them vulnerable. I remember back in early 2017 how Senator Susan Collins from Maine waffled on the tax cut for corporations but then relented and voted for it.
duh, just a wake call here for you dems, you already impeached Trump right? that's what the Senate will consider, the specific charges you're sending them. The time for more witnesses are over, more testimony -- over. McConnell's not going to subpeona anyone.
Want to investigate some more, go ahead, but you'll have to start from scratch again with investigations and delusions of impeachment. This one has concluded.
Again for the 48th time... They were not prevented from Testifying.
Schiff / Nadler just did not want to go court and force them to testify. They knew they would lose due to Executive Privilege.
Nancy thinks she has a solid case. No more witnesses are needed.
Sorry but... Trump was NOT CLAIMING executive privilege.
He simple ordered people not to talk or send out documents. That is not executive privilege!!!!!
IF he had claimed executive privilege... Nadler could just apply SCOTUS to overturn it. And SCOTUS would overturn it. Just like it did with Nixon!
That is why he is impeached with Obstruction of Congress.
Trump brought this on himself.
It was actually more important to him to NOT SHOW ANYTHING, then risk Obstructing Congressional oversight.
duh, just a wake call here for you dems, you already impeached Trump right? that's what the Senate will consider, the specific charges you're sending them. The time for more witnesses are over, more testimony -- over. McConnell's not going to subpeona anyone.
Want to investigate some more, go ahead, but you'll have to start from scratch again with investigations and delusions of impeachment. This one has concluded.
But but but... all the witnesses that have testified have showed what Trump did was unconstitutional and against his Oath of office.
Are you telling us McConnell don't want Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolten, the three closest witnesses to Trump that would exonerate Trump, not to witness?
Why don't McConnell want to look at all the documents that has been withheld as evidence. When they clearly will show Trump is innocent?
I mean.. that is why Trump has withheld them right?..... Since they would prove his innocence in a Trial in the Senate?
Again for the 48th time... They were not prevented from Testifying.
Schiff / Nadler just did not want to go court and force them to testify. They knew they would lose due to Executive Privilege.
Nancy thinks she has a solid case. No more witnesses are needed.
If they had to go to court to get the witnesses to testify they WERE prevented by executive privilege.
If you don't think witnesses are needed then you don't want the truth.
I'll say it again. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
Again for the 48th time... They were not prevented from Testifying.
Schiff / Nadler just did not want to go court and force them to testify. They knew they would lose due to Executive Privilege.
Nancy thinks she has a solid case. No more witnesses are needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sindey
If they had to go to court to get the witnesses to testify they WERE prevented by executive privilege.
If you don't think witnesses are needed then you don't want the truth.
I'll say it again. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
Precedence was set in the United States v. Nixon
Public domain quote follows and was the conclusion of the court in US v. Nixon: No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.
The House demanded documents and witnesses with lawful subpoenas. Trump refused. The obstruction charge stands by precedence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they had to go to court to get the witnesses to testify they WERE prevented by executive privilege. 
