Impeachment Witnesses

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Then what is the problem? Bring it to the Senate then. Let's do this. You can't do a deed then whine about not having enough evidence.

This is getting circular and pointless.

a reply to: LSU2018

lol, I hope nobody told them the truth. If they believe Trump has been removed maybe they'll all go away.

a reply to: pavil

If they proved their case, then what in the Hell are you arguing about even?

Trump has been impeached. Whether or not his crimes amount to removal from office, that's the purview of the Senate in a trial. I'm arguing that I think the rules for this upcoming trial should include witnesses. Democrats have asked for 4 witnesses.

I think that McConnell and Lindsey Graham don't want those witnesses, because they won't help Trump's case. They don't want any witnesses, because they also don't want Trump to call Joe and Hunter Biden.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Mach2

While you are correct that the judicial branch has no say in the house precedings directly, they most definitely have the final say on whether privilege applies.

Trump did NOT site executive privilege. He ordered his staff and his aides to ignore the subpoenas as illegitimate. If he had sited executive privilege, he would have had to acknowledge Congress' authority to issue subpoenas in the first place, which he refused to do.

Who says he has to "cite" anything? Again, where in the Constitution, or US penal code do you find support for that statement?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You and the Dems don't get to set the Senate Ground rules just like the Republicans had to pound salt in the House.

Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler shouldn't have been such Docks about it. A real Impeachment should have tons of support from both sides. The Dems tried to ramrod this through. Good Luck with that in the Senate which they do not control and do not have vast bipartisan support for.

Good Lord.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: pavil

If they proved their case, then what in the Hell are you arguing about even?

Trump has been impeached. Whether or not his crimes amount to removal from office, that's the purview of the Senate in a trial. I'm arguing that I think the rules for this upcoming trial should include witnesses. Democrats have asked for 4 witnesses.

I think that McConnell and Lindsey Graham don't want those witnesses, because they won't help Trump's case. They don't want any witnesses, because they also don't want Trump to call Joe and Hunter Biden.

Well, at least now you are stating it as your opinion, rather than fact.

I can accept that your opinion differs from mine.

a reply to: pavil

They "ram rodded it through", as you say, because of the blaring evidence that Trump asked a foreign government to aid him in his reelection bid by opening an investigation into his political rivals. Trump said he did this, Mick Mulvaney said that the OMB withheld aid in order to accomplish this.

The Mueller investigation was about whether or not the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to assist his campaign. But, we have Trump telling ABC news that FBI Director Wray is wrong, and that there is nothing wrong with him coordinating with a foreign government to aid him in his reelection.

Trump is hoping that he can keep the Democrats at bay through the 2020 elections, by forcing them to go to court. But they see an urgency to get him and the American people to understand that coordinating with a foreign government to aid a certain campaign in our elections is illegal, even for the President of the United States.

a reply to: queenofswords

Did you not keep up with the rules the Demwit Schiff was setting? They weren't affording the Republicans the same rights in calling witnesses. They were setting restrictions on them. They were limiting their questions even.

So, tit for tat? You didn't let us bring in Hunter Biden, so we're not going to support your obstruction of Congress charge by asking for the same witnesses that the Trump administration stonewalled?

Grow up.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

that isn't even what they were coordinating about, he wanted information on illegal dealings to expose corruption the bidens were involved in inside the ukraine. if you call exposing corruption coordinating to win an election then our country has a serious corruption problem, i can only see one reason Congress went ahead with this illegal impeachment, and that is because they are afraid of being exposed by that investigation going on. if he's removed first not only will that investigation fail but congress will reduce the power of the executive and further their own power in the future.

a reply to: namehere

Lipstick on a pig, that.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The investigation is over. The testimonies have been given. The articles of impeachment (the charges) are written. The impeachment (conviction) for those articles has been ratified by vote.

Perhaps you are confused by the fact that further articles of impeachment (charges) are still possible.

Do you believe Congress is searching for further witnesses in the currently ratified impeachment articles?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

this isn't about justice or protecting America from foreign influence, it's just a ploy to weaken the power of the executive branch using trump as justification, this will hurt this country in the long run. the voice of the people will get weaker and the president will be a puppet of Congress from now on. no more balance of power. this is a power grab and i see the supreme court being their next target after trump falls.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The investigation is over. The testimonies have been given. The articles of impeachment (the charges) are written. The impeachment (conviction) for those articles has been ratified by vote.

Perhaps you are confused by the fact that further articles of impeachment (charges) are still possible.

Do you believe Congress is searching for further witnesses in the currently ratified impeachment articles?

I know you are not from the States but please LEARN about our legal proceedings before you go and type flat out untruths.
Trump was impeached in the House and he most definitely has not been "convicted" of anything.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nothing is over. You do not understand the law or how this works.

The House provides an 'indictment'. That is all impeachment is. Impeachment is NOT removal of a president.
The Senate will dismiss the charges or conduct a trial. At that trial the POTUS and his lawyers will be able to call ANYONE they want to testify. This is what has Congress as well as prior elected/appointed officials scared and why they are trying to hold up the articles.

They, the House Dems, f'd themselves by doing this. When the POTUS is declared innocent of the 'charges' it will then be overr and you will see what happens to those who falsely accuse and actually lie.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
They, and a bunch of documents, were subpoenaed, but Trump ordered his staff to ignore the subpoenas.

That is what the 3rd branch is for... they should have taken it to court.

That's why Trump has been impeached for obstruction of Congress.

No, they are doing that because they have nothing - nada - zilch - on him, after 3+ years of looking using the most powerful spying tools and organization in the world.

a reply to: tanstaafl

They're already in court with MCGanh and over Trump's taxes. There's no need to get in the back of the line. But, there is an urgency to stop Trump from coordinating with foreign governments to interfere in the 2020 election.

There is no disputing the fact that Trump asked Zelenskiy to open an investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden and his son Hunter. He admitted it. Mulvaney admitted that Ukraine aid was held up to ensure that investigation was announced. Trump also admitted that he didn't believe that coordinating with a foreign government about smear campaigns against his political is a perfectly fine thing for him to do and that he would do it. Then he did it.

There is also no disputing that Trump ignored congressional subpoena's claiming them to be illegitimate. That's why he was impeached for obstruction of Congress.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

They're already in court with MCGanh and over Trump's taxes. There's no need to get in the back of the line.

There are ways of filing expedited cases for things like this.

That said - what is the hurry?

But, there is an urgency to stop Trump from coordinating with foreign governments to interfere in the 2020 election.

There is zero evidence that he is doing that, which is the main point. It is a lie. You fell for it. Just admit it and move on.

There is no disputing the fact that Trump asked Zelenskiy to open an investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden and his son Hunter. He admitted it.

There was nothing to admit. He asked Zelensky to look into the 2016 election meddling, as well as the mess surrounding Burisma and the Bidens - so yes, he did also mention Biden. So what? Do you seriously think he is worried about Biden? Biden couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag.

Mulvaney admitted that Ukraine aid was held up to ensure that investigation was announced.

No, he didn't. He said that 'quid pro quos happen all the time, get over it'. And he is right.

A synonym of quid-pro-quo is: negotiation.

Trump also admitted that he didn't believe that coordinating with a foreign government about smear campaigns against his political is a perfectly fine thing for him to do and that he would do it. Then he did it.

Prove it. Let me save you some time. He said nothing of the sort.

There is also no disputing that Trump ignored congressional subpoena's claiming them to be illegitimate. That's why he was impeached for obstruction of Congress.

They were illegitimate. Congress' answer to him ignoring them is take him to court. It is not an impeachable offense. Period.

Get over it.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: chr0naut

Nothing is over. You do not understand the law or how this works.

The House provides an 'indictment'. That is all impeachment is. Impeachment is NOT removal of a president.

The articles of impeachment are the indictments. The House has the sole power of Impeachment - US Constitution. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5.

The Senate cannot just dismiss the impeachment charges. It must conduct a trial presided over by the US Chief Justice, (currently His Honour John Roberts) - US Constitution. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6.

The Senate then votes on the sentence which can only be either to remove or not to remove. US Constitution. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7.

The Senate will dismiss the charges or conduct a trial. At that trial the POTUS and his lawyers will be able to call ANYONE they want to testify. This is what has Congress as well as prior elected/appointed officials scared and why they are trying to hold up the articles.

They, the House Dems, f'd themselves by doing this. When the POTUS is declared innocent of the 'charges' it will then be overr and you will see what happens to those who falsely accuse and actually lie.

We will see.

This whole "Impeachment" thing is nothing more than the "Dress Affair". Is it Black and Blue, or Gold and white? Did you hear yanny or was laurel that you heard? Similarly, did Sondland say Trump wanted Quid pro Quo or not?

In Sondland's opening statement he hints that Trump could have meant that, but later in his testimony he clearly says otherwise. So which is it? "yanny or laurel" what did you hear, what color is dress, was Sondland's statement have Trump say "Quid pro Quo" or not. It all comes down to what your pre-conceived notions refract the world around you. So when some people state something one way over the other, I doubt that they could believe anything other than what they believe.

All this being said;
"I'm not sure why the S/T are demanding that additional witnesses get called for their case, but in the same motion raise a stink about people like Biden and Schiff getting called to also testify. This is the part where it comes across as nothing but a desperate grasping at straws to me."

a reply to: chr0naut

No, the Senate has the sole power to 'try' the case. Just as the House has the sole power to indict the Senate has the 'sole' power to try the case. This does not mean there has to be a full trial. They could 'start' the trial and vote to dismiss.

The problem is this is all very new and in over 200 years only happened 3 times. Precedent is not set. It would more than likely end up in the SCOTUS docks if that occurred.

The mere fact that the impeachment has not gone to the Senate as Nancy says she needs to find her 'managers' shows they did not want to get to this point. Are you going to tell me they are so ill-prepared they do not know who they want to fight for this in the Senate?

This entire thing is as bad as the speaker trying to control the SOTU address. She is overreaching and once you commit you cannot turn back.