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.
Impeachment is a Constitutional remedy for abuse of power or office and does not require a crime.
By your logic, a president could not be impeached for promising pardons to murderers of political rivals, but could be impeached for a speeding ticket. It's a ludicrous argument.
(And the GAO determined trump did break the law.)
What is trump hiding? What are the Republicans hiding?
The whistleblower testified behind closed doors? LMAO. You can't even get your core facts straight and you expect to be taken with even a modicum of seriousness?
Right.
The so-called "whistle-blower" never testified.
I assume the reason for that is he had no direct evidence of anything.
Furthermore, taking the stand for the Democrats would open the door to cross examination.
First, they indicted knowing that their evidence didn’t warrant it! The indictment was unwarranted. Just saying that someone is indicted means nothing when it comes from deranged Trump-haters like Pelosi and Schiff.
Second, why do you think only the Senate trial should be unbiased, and that the House hearing should be biased? It was a HEARING to determine if there was enough there to impeach a president. There was a vote, and that would presume that both sides could present evidence for or against. You seem to think that the job of the House was to impeach the president, when in fact the job was to allow full testimony to determine if it was warranted.
And third, McConnell’s job is to look at the Articles of Impeachment, along with the weak supporting evidence the a Dems sent up, and determine if they rise to the level of impeachment. His job is NOT to do the Houses’s job for them, and make up for the fact that they were so overeager to overturn the election that they didn’t complete their witness testimony.
The Constitution says the Senate is where the trial takes place. A trial means witnesses called by each side. That is a core element of Anglo-American jurisprudence.
The House has simply informed the Senate that Trump has been impeached for abuse of power. Now it will tell the Senate how the offense occurred by calling witnesses to prove it.
Nope..... the Jury does not get to prosecute. They sit and watch what the house has.
The evidence is in the articles presented. They don't get to add in the senate, or argue what is not in the articles. The articles have no crime conveyed. It is a rant the President used Executive Privilege.
Is Obstruction of Congress, a felony or misdemeanor?
Is Abuse of Executive Privilege, a felony or misdemeanor?
Impeachment is a Constitutional remedy for abuse of power or office and does not require a crime.
By your logic, a president could not be impeached for promising pardons to murderers of political rivals, but could be impeached for a speeding ticket. It's a ludicrous argument.
(And the GAO determined trump did break the law.)
What is trump hiding? What are the Republicans hiding?
Whatever you may think is being "hidden" is the job of the House to pursue, not the senate.
People seem to keep conflating Judical branch rights, such as due process, with Impeachment. The latter is exclusively a process of the Legislative branch, and Congress can make it whatever they want, subject to the handful of rules provided in the Constitution.
Being conservative isn't a crime !!! The crime was committed by Obama and he got the usual pass !!!
And neither is sitting on a board you're unqualified for. But you're saying that's sufficient justification to start investigations on corruption. So again... if Obama used the IRS to investigate activity, that's not illegal, to find out if there was corruption, that would have been fine, right?
Whatever you may think is being "hidden" is the job of the House to pursue, not the senate.
Exactly. The Senate's job is to evaluate the House's work and reach a verdict/judgment as to whether it's enough to remove. It's not a never-ending fishing expedition. Any trial lawyer would know this. You can't just call new witnesses who weren't disclosed and deposed before the trial unless there is a detailed proffer as to what their testimony will be.
That won't stop liberals from lying about it. We have 13 pages of it on this thread alone.
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.
