Democrat counsel indicates House may seek to impeach Trump yet again

[Speedwell]

Who knows. The waters are so muddy now - its anyone guess.

You don't go to trial unless you have the goods for a conviction. You don't go to trial and demand things you hope will bring you a conviction. You take care of that prior to trial. I don't know WHY they are doing this, because they look so unprepared and are relying on the opposing side to help them out. This is just nuts.

Perhaps it is because they think they have enough of a case without those witnesses.

 

[HannahT]

Perhaps it is because they think they have enough of a case without those witnesses.

Then they need to move forward. This delay since this HAS to be done prior to election doesn't make any sense.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I'm not a Republican believe it or not. I did answer your question. I don't believe he can hold back under a court order from the Supreme court. There is no reason I need to be that literal for you figure that out.

Nixon and Clinton stonewalled too, and why they got orders to force the subject. It's the nature of beast.

I’m sorry I missed where you answered my questions. Perhaps you can dumb it down for me so I can understand it just put:

“1) {YOUR ANSWER}
2) {YOUR ANSWER}”

For the following questions:
1) Can I trust that Trump would hand over the documents and allow testimony if demanded by the courts?

2) Can I trust that you will voice your displeasure with Trump if he fails to do so?


Thank you for your understanding and clearing this up for me.

 

[JohnAshton]

Then they need to move forward. This delay since this HAS to be done prior to election doesn't make any sense.

No, it does not. By telling McConnel there will no articles of impeachment if there are no witnesses, the entire GOP looks like it is colluding in hiding something. Which it is: Trump's shenanigans.

 

[HannahT]

No, it does not. By telling McConnel there will no articles of impeachment if there are no witnesses, the entire GOP looks like it is colluding in hiding something. Which it is: Trump's shenanigans.

Well, I don't get that theory at all.

You can go to court and force the witnesses and documents. Dem's say that would take to long, and so we expect the GOP just to hand them over instead. That's not going to happen, and its rather silly to expect them too. It would be no different - and I would expect no different - if the shoe was on the other foot.

Remember they (Dems) also said they had indisputable proof, facts, etc. If that was the case? They don't need anything else. They can hold on to the impeachment articles until they turn blue. Nothing happens to Trump's Presidency - him being in or out - until they do. Hopefully, they will think up something with more teeth. I mean the republic is at risk! URGENCY here! If they don't? Shenanigans would be seen coming from the other side. You don't say you have the goods to remove him, and then just sit on them and don't. It's not the Republicans job to prove their case. That job clearly is theirs to prove.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, it does not. By telling McConnel there will no articles of impeachment if there are no witnesses, the entire GOP looks like it is colluding in hiding something. Which it is: Trump's shenanigans.

What's the point of witnesses if the witnesses are already deciding for themselves whether they are relevant or not and that they won't testify based on their own conclusions? Joe Biden reiterates that he won't testify in a Senate impeachment trial - CNNPolitics

 

[Speedwell]

What's the point of witnesses if the witnesses are already deciding for themselves whether they are relevant or not and that they won't testify based on their own conclusions? Joe Biden reiterates that he won't testify in a Senate impeachment trial - CNNPolitics

Of course, many announcements of that kind have been made, but it's all part of a complicated dance that is going on behind the scenes about which we know very little, and won't until Congress reconvenes. That said, nothing has been brought forward which would indicate that either of the Bidens would have anything significant to add to the testimony.

 

[Aldebaran]

Of course, many announcements of that kind have been made, but it's all part of a complicated dance that is going on behind the scenes about which we know very little, and won't until Congress reconvenes. That said, nothing has been brought forward which would indicate that either of the Bidens would have anything significant to add to the testimony.

We won't know that until they actually testify. It's up to the jurors to decide whether their testimony ended up being relevant, not the witnesses.

 

[Speedwell]

We won't know that until they actually testify. It's up to the jurors to decide whether their testimony ended up being relevant, not the witnesses.

Do you have any idea what they would be expected to testify about?

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you have any idea what they would be expected to testify about?

Well, as you said, "but it's all part of a complicated dance that is going on behind the scenes about which we know very little", but I'd be very interested in finding out what information they might have.

 

[JohnAshton]

What's the point of witnesses if the witnesses are already deciding for themselves whether they are relevant or not and that they won't testify based on their own conclusions? Joe Biden reiterates that he won't testify in a Senate impeachment trial - CNNPolitics

That is last week. Biden has said he will testify if he subpoenaed.

biden says he will testify - Bing video

 

[JohnAshton]

Well, I don't get that theory at all.

You can go to court and force the witnesses and documents. Dem's say that would take to long, and so we expect the GOP just to hand them over instead. That's not going to happen, and its rather silly to expect them too. It would be no different - and I would expect no different - if the shoe was on the other foot.

Remember they (Dems) also said they had indisputable proof, facts, etc. If that was the case? They don't need anything else. They can hold on to the impeachment articles until they turn blue. Nothing happens to Trump's Presidency - him being in or out - until they do. Hopefully, they will think up something with more teeth. I mean the republic is at risk! URGENCY here! If they don't? Shenanigans would be seen coming from the other side. You don't say you have the goods to remove him, and then just sit on them and don't. It's not the Republicans job to prove their case. That job clearly is theirs to prove.

Sure you do, if the trial does not have witnesses. Sit down and wait, until it is time for the voters to decide.

 

[Aldebaran]

That is last week. Biden has said he will testify if he subpoenaed.

biden says he will testify - Bing video

I'm glad he flip-flopped on that decision. I wonder if he would do that if he were to become president.

 

[JohnAshton]

We won't know that until they actually testify. It's up to the jurors to decide whether their testimony ended up being relevant, not the witnesses.

Then Mulvaney and Bolton should have testified before the House.

 

[HannahT]

Sure you do, if the trial does not have witnesses. Sit down and wait, until it is time for the voters to decide.

That's what they should have done in the first place. Wait for the election, and see if he is removed.

What I'm worried about? Is the nuts out there - not the average DEM/GOP - but the nuts - watching this trial go down, and he isn't convicted. I say that because they have come too far to stop now. The nuts are going to lose their minds, and start trouble. That won't be on Trump, but the ones that instigated this and moved forward without the goods to finish the job. They will feel lied too, and it won't be pretty.

They could have done this the right way, and they would have had every right to get their hands on the stuff they want. Yet, they choose to blow it. Unless some bomb drops that we don't know about? It's going to be very ugly, and the silly entitled twits in Washington will be the one responsible.

 

[Speedwell]

That's what they should have done in the first place. Wait for the election, and see if he is removed.

What I'm worried about? Is the nuts out there - not the average DEM/GOP - but the nuts - watching this trial go down, and he isn't convicted. I say that because they have come too far to stop now. The nuts are going to lose their minds, and start trouble. That won't be on Trump, but the ones that instigated this and moved forward without the goods to finish the job. They will feel lied too, and it won't be pretty.

They could have done this the right way, and they would have had every right to get their hands on the stuff they want. Yet, they choose to blow it. Unless some bomb drops that we don't know about? It's going to be very ugly, and the silly entitled twits in Washington will be the one responsible.

The other side is the side with the guns, already promised to "Hunt them (Democrats) down" if Trump is removed.

 

[HannahT]

Then Mulvaney and Bolton should have testified before the House.

What do you think part of this fight is about? They won't let them, and the DEMS don't want to go to court to force the subject. They aren't going to come unless the administration changes something, and I doubt that will happen. This is something they should have planned prior, and they failed too. I thought for sure they had something up their sleeve, but as of now? I got nothing. I don't know what they are doing.

 

[HannahT]

The other side is the side with the guns, already promised to "Hunt them (Democrats) down" if Trump is removed.

There were protests and riots after he got elected, and it's not going to get better once they don't get the conviction. I don't care who said what. Sadly, you feel it already simmering.

 

[Speedwell]

There were protests and riots after he got elected, and it's not going to get better once they don't get the conviction. I don't care who said what. Sadly, you feel it already simmering.

I've lived in the Bible Belt (as the "wrong" kind of Christian). The pot's been on the boil for years.

 

[JohnAshton]

That's what they should have done in the first place. Wait for the election, and see if he is removed.

What I'm worried about? Is the nuts out there - not the average DEM/GOP - but the nuts - watching this trial go down, and he isn't convicted. I say that because they have come too far to stop now. The nuts are going to lose their minds, and start trouble. That won't be on Trump, but the ones that instigated this and moved forward without the goods to finish the job. They will feel lied too, and it won't be pretty.

They could have done this the right way, and they would have had every right to get their hands on the stuff they want. Yet, they choose to blow it. Unless some bomb drops that we don't know about? It's going to be very ugly, and the silly entitled twits in Washington will be the one responsible.

I agree both sides could correct this if they would, but they won't.

The nut violence will be primarily to the far right, I think, but we will see.