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.
No one asked to "toss all of [the evidence from the House] aside." The House managers sought to supplement the House evidence with additional first-hand witness testimony unavailable to the House in direct response to Trump claiming that there was insufficient first-hand witness testimony to remove him.
There is no requirement that the Senate inquiry be limited to the evidence presented in the House. You just made that up out of thin air.
This is why the House managers, as the prosecution, go to the Senate to present their case. then the defense gets to cross examine the evidence and present their rebuttal, then the Senate votes.
You want the prosecution to present their case, then get another shot at a new inquiry. Sorry, they had all the time they needed to present their case, it's not Trump's fault they blew it. If the President's lawyers finish their rebuttal to the house manager's case, they do not have to call any witnesses. Now it goes to the vote.
I would think you would be thrilled that Trump is going to allow the House's iron clad case, that "proved our case without any doubt at all" to stand.
That is a prosecutor's dream, that they can bring a case against the defendant, not allow the defendant to call any witnesses or present any new evidence.
Because Trump and the GOP expressly argued that they did not agree that is was "overwhelming" and demanded the presentation of additional first-hand evidence. Yet when offered such additional first-hand evidence, the GOP decided to cover their ears.
That's correct, they comprehend the evidence and also knew that there were house dems that cared nothing about evidence.
This is why the House managers, as the prosecution, go to the Senate to present their case. then the defense gets to cross examine the evidence and present their rebuttal, then the Senate votes.
You want the prosecution to present their case, then get another shot at a new inquiry. Sorry, they had all the time they needed to present their case, it's not Trump's fault they blew it. If the President's lawyers finish their rebuttal to the house manager's case, they do not have to call any witnesses. Now it goes to the vote.
I would think you would be thrilled that Trump is going to allow the House's iron clad case, that "proved our case without any doubt at all" to stand.
That is a prosecutor's dream, that they can bring a case against the defendant, not allow the defendant to call any witnesses or present any new evidence.
None of what you wrote changes the fact that there is no requirement that the Senate inquiry be limited to the evidence presented in the House. After declaring that they would not remove without additional evidence, the GOP had the unilateral power (and right) to decide whether to hear all of the evidence or just hear some of the evidence.
The GOP decided that they were unwilling to hear newly-available, relevant evidence. The voters will ultimately decide whether that was the right course of action. Collins, Gardner, and McSally are probably not too happy about that, but it seems straightforward enough to me.
None of what you wrote changes the fact that there is no requirement that the Senate inquiry be limited to the evidence presented in the House. After declaring that they would not remove without additional evidence, the GOP had the unilateral power (and right) to decide whether to hear all of the evidence or just hear some of the evidence.
Actually, it was the House's decision that the Senate would not hear all the evidence. They've withheld Atkinson's testimony.
Sure it's a no brainer when you know he's guilty and you have the majority and mcconnell to extort other republican senators to bend to his and trump's will.
That is an exceptionally phony excuse for sic'ing a foreign government on an American citizen and potential political rival. I am surprised you fall for it.
First of all, unless, and until, Biden wins the Democratic primary he is not Trump's political opponent.
You seem to want a new law that says if an American commits a crime in a foreign country we are supposed to turn a blind eye to it. Especially if the person commuting the crimes is using his position in political office to engage in corruption. It's supposed to be open season for American citizens to commit crimes abroad?
The "Biden was Trump's political rival" argument is ridiculous. You want a person to be immune from investigation for possible criminal activities, simply because they are running for political office?
Biden was first elected to political office in 1975, and every election cycle since then, he has run for political office. He's run for president three times now, and so far he has lost every primary bid. So please tell us, when it will ever be allowable to investigate Joe Biden?
First of all, unless, and until, Biden wins the Democratic primary he is not Trump's political opponent.
You seem to want a new law that says if an American commits a crime in a foreign country we are supposed to turn a blind eye to it. It's supposed to be open season for American citizens to commit crimes abroad?
The Biden was Trump's political rival argument is ridiculous. You want a person to be immune from investigation for possible criminal activities, simply because they are running for political office?
Biden was first elected to political office in 1975, and every election cycle since then, he has run for political office. He's run for president three times now, and so far he has lost every primary bid. So please tell us, when it will ever be allowable to investigate Joe Biden?
The only people who are going to buy into these tired, nonsensical talking points are people who have already made up their minds. The claim that Joe Biden wasn't a political rival of Trump is not a winning argument when it comes to college-educated swing voters.
Republican Senators had the power to summon Atkinson to testify. They did not need a single Democratic vote to do so.
They'll vote based on the "overwhelming evidence" the House claims they've presented. Should be no problem after all the crowing Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff have done about their supposedly irrefutable "proof."
Interesting question from Collins joined by Rubio and Risch, asking why did House drop Kupperman subpoena in Nov. 6 which was an EP fight that could have resolved the issue.
Not only did they withdraw the subp, they asked the Court to dismiss his case as moot to prevent a ruling.
Apparently Bolton was also looking at a subpoena.
Kupperman and Bolton both said they would testify, if the courts found for the House.
Because they knew if they lost, it would blow their entire Obstruction Article.
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.
