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 if Sondland's testimony is sufficient to convict, the Democrats shouldn't need any other witnesses to prove their case. I guess they agree with me because they impeached without the witnesses that they now wish to call, which means they felt those who had already testified made their case sufficiently, at least for indictment.
It isn't a question of whether additional witnesses are "needed to convict" as much as it is a question of whether additional witnesses needed for the Senate to make the most informed decision possible. Trump supporters have been complaining for months that most of the evidence against Trump has been circumstantial. Only those who fear the truth are interested in continuing to suppress testimony and documents that will provide more direct evidence of what did or did not happen.
Again, there was testimony under oath by Sondland that trump wanted a public announcement of a Biden investigation before trump would release the congressional appropriated funds (a.k.a. quid pro quo) and "everyone was in on the loop!"
Until trump provides witnesses with testimony under oath that counteracts Sondland's testimony, Sondland's testimony stands.
That was an opinion, not factual evidence..... and the money was released before the deadline.
Given that there's no factual evidence of wrongdoing, and no accusations of breaking any law, the case should be dismissed immediately.
You are still holding out hope that if you investigate more and hear from enough witnesses you'll get some evidence of wrongdoing, but you know deep down none currently exists even if you can't admit that due to partisan reasons.
Those you listed were all subpoenaed by the House but they ignored that subpoena. After this is over, I hope all of those who ignored the subpoena by Congress are indicted.
No, what happens if the Executive (President) and Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives) have a conflict, they seek resolution at the 3rd branch: Judicial. The judicial branch can either enforce a subpoena or confirm executive privileges. This was done for example during the Nixon impeachment process.
However, Nancy Pelosi, Schiff and house democrats didn't want to WAIT for the judicial branch to enforce the subpoena, since time is of essence. However, now Pelosi is sitting on the same articles?
In other words, since Pelosi/Schiff/Dems rushed the process and didn't to follow the correct procedures, why would the Senate take over the House job with calling witness? The sole job of the Senate during impeachment is to declare a verdict over the House articles of impeachment.
If you're upset with anyone, be upset with the house dems. They may have well won the legal case to enforce the subpoenas.
That was an opinion, not factual evidence..... and the money was released before the deadline.
Given that there's no factual evidence of wrongdoing, and no accusations of breaking any law, the case should be dismissed immediately.
You are still holding out hope that if you investigate more and hear from enough witnesses you'll get some evidence of wrongdoing, but you know deep down none currently exists even if you can't admit that due to partisan reasons.
It would seem to me that Senate Republicans are scared of the truth coming out because they appear to be willing to run the political risk of being accused of holding a sham trial in order to avoid seeing the relevant documents and hearing the relevant testimony. I would imagine that if they truly believed the evidence to be exculpatory, the GOP would be demanding transparency so they can use it as a political cudgel to expose the Democrats for electoral purposes.
Haven't we heard enough evidence from the witnesses that the Dems called on in the House? You know the ones that heard a rumor or had their feelings hurt by something that was said. The same ones that had no first hand knowledge of what was actually said on the phone call but merely reacted and reported what they had heard around the water cooler?
The Dems all voted along party lines with a few that abstained and the Reps all voted along their line as well but the impeached passed due to sheer numbers over actual hard evidence.
The whole thing is a rushed botch of a sham and that is a real shame because the Democrats have reduced the serious nature of an impeachment into a partisan political circus.
We wouldn't be in this mess if 3 years ago the Democrats choose to work with Trump the best they could instead of trying to destroy him and sap his base.
Pelosi is not sending the articles because she knows it is a weak case that should be shut down but she can hold them over Trump and cast a doubt over his reelection and certainly deny his choosing a nominee if RBG should step down from the Supreme Court.
I don't know about McConnel but it is hard to believe how complicit millions of people are in this country when it comes to the dirty politics the Dems are using to destroy Trump.
Yes, we sure have. Now we'd like to hear testimony from those with first-hand information - Giuliani, Mulvaney, Perry, Pompeo, and Bolton. One at a time or all at once. Makes no difference.
Looking at the accusations made by the House, "Abuse of Power" is a nonsense article that is ill defined and subjective. It should be dismissed without consideration due to the inherent problems with allegations based on opinion alone.
The second article is factually inaccurate and should be immediately dismissed on that basis.
I can see no reason why a "trial" should actually occur based on these pathetically flawed allegations.
And if Sondland's testimony is sufficient to convict, the Democrats shouldn't need any other witnesses to prove their case. I guess they agree with me because they impeached without the witnesses that they now wish to call, which means they felt those who had already testified made their case sufficiently, at least for indictment.
It would seem to me that Senate Republicans are scared of the truth coming out because they appear to be willing to run the political risk of being accused of holding a sham trial in order to avoid seeing the relevant documents and hearing the relevant testimony. I would imagine that if they truly believed the evidence to be exculpatory, the GOP would be demanding transparency so they can use it as a political cudgel to expose the Democrats for electoral purposes.
You can always claim that the innocent woman shouldn't fear the witchcraft trial, but I'm sure you know that's not true, you just want to justify continuing the sham with the hopes of scoring political points.
That was an opinion, not factual evidence..... and the money was released before the deadline.
Given that there's no factual evidence of wrongdoing, and no accusations of breaking any law, the case should be dismissed immediately.
You are still holding out hope that if you investigate more and hear from enough witnesses you'll get some evidence of wrongdoing, but you know deep down none currently exists even if you can't admit that due to partisan reasons.
Sondland talked to trump himself on the phone.
About the money, if a armed robber drops the money on the way out of the bank because he sees the cops, does not mean he is innocent of armed robbery?
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.
