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.
Yup. It takes some chutzpah for Dems to block the Republican witnesses in the House, and then complain that the Senate won’t allow them additional Democrat witnesses.
Ain't that the truth. The dems refused to allow Trump's lawyers enough time to prepare, refused to allow them or the Republicans in the House to call witnesses, refused to allow repubs to question witnesses, and now the TDS afflicted dems on this forum have the audacity to complain about fairness?????
You are in error. There was no House trial. The House proceeding followed the form of an indictment.
Yes, it was behind closed doors but the testimony was televised.
Reread the Constitution so that you know what you are talking about in the future.
The only witnesses the Dems allowed were those whom Schiff, on the most blatant witch-hunt coup attempt I could ever imagine, allowed. It was completely one-sided, and Trump was not permitted to mount a defense, via witnesses he would have wanted.
Beyond that, it was the House’s responsibility to get the testimony of all witnesses they needed to make their case, and then turn it over to the Senate for trial. They realized that they case in weak, and now they want to bring up additional witnesses to smear Trump. They know they can’t win. All this is is a big anti-Trump campaign, paid for by the American taxpayer.
The articles of impeachment sent up to the Senate is what the senators need to consider. If they determine that the charges have not been proven re the House evidence included, or that the charges do not rise to the level of an impeachable crime, then they vote to acquit.
It does appear the Senate is nervous about having too much information at the trial. I don't know if they know of anything specific or if they are just concerned what might pop up.
What is this now, the 3rd or 4th thread on how the senate trial is going to be a sham?
Basically what the anti-trumpers are saying is, we know we did not have enough evidence to impeach in the house...so, senate, do our job and investigate because we (the house failed)....
Ain't that the truth. The dems refused to allow Trump's lawyers enough time to prepare, refused to allow them or the Republicans in the House to call witnesses, refused to allow repubs to question witnesses, and now the TDS afflicted dems on this forum have the audacity to complain about fairness?????
60% of Americans want to hear witnesses in the trial. If McConnell refuses to allow witnesses, the trial will be viewed as a sham and a cover-up, regardless of what happened in the House hearings. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that Trump and his allies are desperate to not let Bolton testify. Why is that if he is innocent?
New developments since you went to work this morning.
New developments? Sorry. Can’t introduce it now. The Ds voted for impeachment, which means they felt they proved their case, with the existing hearsay and opinions.
^^^What he said. Spare us your silly, disingenuous demands for “the truth”. The House failed in its job of allowing all testimony, including exculpatory testimony, and through suppression, have forced the Senate to vote on a flimsy House case. THAT is the source of all frustration for the pathetic Dem conundrum. The Senate supposedly deals with the case handed to them. The “trial” was over last year. Sorry!
COMPLETELY FALSE!!!
The House inquiry only needed to prove there was enough evidence to send the impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Like a Grand Jury, they do NOT and NEED NOT exhaust their resources to root out every piece of evidence they can. That's the trial's job. And by the standard of 70% of citizens of this country, of which I include myself, their investigation was sufficient to warrant a Senate trial. With evidence and witnesses, new or sent from the House investigation. And lo and behold new charges may be brought in the trial.
It is my understanding the crime is whatever the House says it is.
And where does the Constitution indicate impeachment must name a crime?
It says high crimes or other misdemeanors.
It does say bribery is impeachable. The whole world knows bribery was involved. That came from the chief of staff and OMB director Mulvaney.
Wish all the nations newspaper would do what the Houston Chronicle does every single 4th of July. They print the Constitution.
Is it a felony or a misdemeanor?
It is not the Senate's job to expand the impeachment...It is their job to review what the House have sent forward. Nothing else.
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.
