It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Democrats signaled in the runup to the looming conclusion of President Trump's impeachment proceedings that they'll simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his "sham" trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.
Signaling how they will message the saga in the coming months on the campaign trail, top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate argued Trump can never erase the stain of impeachment because the trial wasn’t legitimate.
originally posted by: Admitted2
I would accept acquittal.
In a trial without witnesses, what else could there be? We see and hear no facts.
Long may he reign.
originally posted by: Ksihkehe
originally posted by: Admitted2
I would accept acquittal.
In a trial without witnesses, what else could there be? We see and hear no facts.
Long may he reign.
There was plenty of opportunity for the house to gather information and call witnesses. As the majority leaders made clear they were in control and had overwhelming evidence. If all the evidence was in and so damning what's the point of muddying the water with more witnesses?
They could have said they were willing to let Joe and Hunter testify and I'm sure the POTUS would have been fine with it. Then the whistleblower could have testified and purjured himself followed by Schiff and another purjury.
originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Admitted2
The trial already happened in the House. The Senate just votes on the evidence the house has gathered whether to remove the president or not. Bolton could’ve been called as a witness in the House but they wanted to rush impeachment as a campaign tool because doing it the legal way would’ve taken to long and the 2020 election would already be over. It’s the only reason they rushed the impeachment vote.
originally posted by: Notoneofyou
That's what happens when you do a # job of preparing your case in court.
originally posted by: Admitted2
originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Admitted2
The trial already happened in the House. The Senate just votes on the evidence the house has gathered whether to remove the president or not. Bolton could’ve been called as a witness in the House but they wanted to rush impeachment as a campaign tool because doing it the legal way would’ve taken to long and the 2020 election would already be over. It’s the only reason they rushed the impeachment vote.
There was no trial in the house. The trial happens in the senate.
originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
originally posted by: Admitted2
originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Admitted2
The trial already happened in the House. The Senate just votes on the evidence the house has gathered whether to remove the president or not. Bolton could’ve been called as a witness in the House but they wanted to rush impeachment as a campaign tool because doing it the legal way would’ve taken to long and the 2020 election would already be over. It’s the only reason they rushed the impeachment vote.
There was no trial in the house. The trial happens in the senate.
Except, it is true.
The trial happens in the Senate.
I'm shocked my "new" account isn't delete yet, lol.
You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Good luck with your new account Admitted.