Senate GOP does not want to allow witnesses at Trump's trial

Speedwell said:

You're right, they can--with the authority of the Constitution. What constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is left entirely to the House to decide. No existing statute need be violated.

Click to expand...

So, now maybe you can understand why people feel as so against the impeachment since many feel the dems are impeaching not for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' but rather simply because the dems hate him...... as you have agreed they need no real reason at all.....

civilwarbuff said:

So, now maybe you can understand why people feel as so against the impeachment since many feel the dems are impeaching not for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' but rather simply because the dems hate him...... as you have agreed they need no real reason at all.....

Click to expand...

The thing is -- and it's important that folks understand this, regardless of what they "feel":

Donald is NOT being impeached because a lot of people hate him.

He WAS booed at the World Series because a lot of people hate him.

He WAS booed at UFC 244 because a lot of people hate him.

He WAS disinvited from the state funerals of McCain and Cummings (and most likely won't be invited to any future state funeral... except his own) because a lot of people hate him.

BUT... He's being impeached because the House believes that he violated his oath of office... NOT because a lot of people hate him.

See the difference?

TLK Valentine said:

Precisely. Donald's attempt to extort the Ukraine is a completely separate criminal act from what the Mueller Investigation was looking into.

Seriously, you didn't know this?

Click to expand...

Speedwell said:

He is being impeached for trying to make an illicit deal with Ukraine and for stiffing the House over the subpoenas.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Pelosi says it was ongoing for a very, long, time. That the articles of impeachment were considered over 2 1/2 years. You telling me that phone call was for 2 and a half years?
I'm trying to find that clip again. @ 8:15

Albion said:

It looks like you are blaming Trump for something that hasn't happened yet, which might happen or might not, and is in McConnell's hands if and when the opportunity rolls around, not the President's.

Click to expand...

I made it very clear that "So McConnell should hold a real trial."

LostMarbels said:

Interesting. Pelosi says it was ongoing for a very, long, time. That the articles of impeachment were considered over 2 1/2 years. You telling me that phone call was for 2 and a half years?
I'm trying to find that clip again. @ 8:15

Click to expand...

Did you read the Articles of Impeachment?

Its almost like it is right out of the playbook.

No probable cause? Steele dossier.

No support? Whistleblower garners support.

You stated:

TLK Valentine said:

Precisely. Donald's attempt to extort the Ukraine is a completely separate criminal act from what the Mueller Investigation was looking into.

Click to expand...

Pelosi stated on Dec 5th they are directly linked, and the impeachment process has been ongoing for 2 and a half years since the initial russian investigation. She further expounds in the clip.

Care to comment?

LostMarbels said:

You stated:




Pelosi stated on Dec 5th they are directly linked, and the impeachment process has been ongoing for 2 and a half years since the initial russian investigation. She further expounds in the clip.

Care to comment?

Click to expand...

I cannot speak to Pelosi's opinions. I can only comment on what the Articles of Impeachment drafted by the United States House of Representatives say.

They, and not Pelosi's opinions, are the basis of what Donald will be tried for... but I suspect that she would appreciate her fellow Americans (such as yourself) holding her opinion in such high regard.

"This isn't about ukraine. This is about Russia."
Speaker of the House: Nancy Pelosi. Dec 5, 2019.


@9:44 in the clip.

LostMarbels said:

You stated:




Pelosi stated on Dec 5th they are directly linked, and the impeachment process has been ongoing for 2 and a half years since the initial russian investigation. She further expounds in the clip.

Care to comment?

Click to expand...

No, she didn't. She said it's been 2 1/2 since the Mueller investigation started that lead to other things but the ah-ah moment, as the reporter put it, was the whistleblower coming forward and the phone call. She did not say the impeachment process started 2 1/2 years ago.

Hank77 said:

I made it very clear that "So McConnell should hold a real trial."

Click to expand...

That doesn't change anything, Hank.

Albion said:

That doesn't change anything, Hank.

Click to expand...

Whatever. I guess you know what I meant when I wrote it.

Hank77 said:

No, she didn't. She said it's been 2 1/2 since the Mueller investigation started that lead to other things but the ah-ah moment, as the reporter put it, was the whistleblower coming forward and the phone call. She did not say the impeachment process started 2 1/2 years ago.

Click to expand...

How about taking @14:09 out for a test drive?

LostMarbels said:

How about taking @14:09 out for a test drive?

Click to expand...

I'm not going to keep interpreting Pelosi, I really don't care. I read the transcripts, watched all the hearings, and can think for myself.

evoeth said:

Trump: I'm totally innocent, all this testimony in the house is hearsay.

Trump: orders all the 1st party witnesses to not testify.

Guiliani, Mulvaney, Bolton: refuse to obey house subpoena.

And now the GOP Senate: we don't want witnesses at the trial.

The GOP is a moral void. One which is thoroughly corrupt.

Click to expand...

But Trump does want witnesses himself, as far as I know. Yet he has no power here. The Senate is making this decision on their own. I'm not sure what their motivation is, but it's stupid, whatever it is.

Hank77 said:

I'm not going to keep interpreting Pelosi, I really don't care. I read the transcripts, watched all the hearings, and can think for myself.

Click to expand...

This is the problem. There is no longer a shade of grey to interpret. This is all blown wide open for all to see.

There is nothing left to fool anyone about.

Hank77 said:

I really don't care.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty. I get it. You want to believe what you want. I will leave you be then.

TLK Valentine said:

BUT... He's being impeached because the House believes that he violated his oath of office... NOT because a lot of people hate him.

See the difference?

Click to expand...

Which oath of office is that? The Executive can't inquire about corruption in Ukraine without risking impeachment? I could have sworn that was actually written into a treaty by none other than Bill Clinton (and signed by Joe Biden, ironically).

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

"With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, an exchange of notes which was signed on September 30, 1999, which provides for its provisional application, as well as the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a board range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and give advice and consent to ratification.” William J. Clinton."


Or was it just the way Trump engaged this? In that case, even Zelinsky said there was no quid-pro-quo. How do you prosecute a crime when the supposed victim says he wasn't even a victim? And what is so earth shattering about wanting to get to the bottom of Berisma holdings? This is like blaming me if I called the cops about overhearing possible domestic violence down the street. Is that the world you actually want to live in... where inquiring about a crime IS the actual crime.. rather than the crime itself being inquired? If that's the case, we must live in Hell. Or close to it.

straykat said:

Which oath of office is that?

Click to expand...

Bribery is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a presidential no-no.

Even if Biden is the corrupted spawn of Don Vito Corleone and Rodrigo Borgia, Donald can't use foreign aid that Congress already authorized in order to dig up dirt on him, feeding an already-debunked conspiracy theory.

In that case, even Zelinsky said there was no quid-pro-quo. How do you prosecute a crime when the supposed victim says he wasn't even a victim?

Click to expand...

"My husband didn't beat me -- I walked into a door."

When the victim denies the allegations, witnesses become more important.

Now are you starting to understand why the Senate GOP doesn't want to allow witnesses?

TLK Valentine said:

When the victim denies the allegations, witnesses become more important.

Now are you starting to understand why the Senate GOP doesn't want to allow witnesses?

Click to expand...

What witnesses do you have in mind? I was hoping Hunter Biden would be put up there, personally. And I think Trump himself would love that. Can you imagine? I don't know why the Senate would prevent it, but I wouldn't blame Trump for it.

TLK Valentine said:

Now are you starting to understand why the Senate GOP doesn't want to allow witnesses?

Click to expand...

Because they don't want to walk into doors?