GOP senators unanimously vote against seeing evidence

High Fidelity

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 9, 2014
24,258
10,276
✟896,801.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Isn't this what the Second Amendment is for? Like seriously. People talk about it being there to stop the government abusing its power... well this is abuse of power. Partisan voting to protect their man. What a joke the U.S. political system is!

If Trump has nothing to hide then why don't they use the stage that's there and not going away to categorically dismiss each claim and provide, or highlight the lack thereof, evidence to each point.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,356.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This is what can happen when no solid evidence is found.

We're talking about removing a sitting president from office.

This calls for undeniable evidence of a crime.
So voting against presenting evidence in the trial would be the "right" thing to do?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,356.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
and now they want the Senate to do the job they should have done in the first place.
This is certainly now the far right talking point, parroted on internet forums all over the world.

The fact is though, that the Senate can subpoena witnesses and documents and can present those in a trial to determine the truth about guilt or innocence.

But for some reason the Republican Senate majority don't want relevant and pertinent evidence to be presented. I can only assume that either they don't want to (or can't) exonerate this president with evidence and facts. If they could they would and then the Dems would be looking very stupid.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The POTUS does not have executive privilege to flatly refuse any and all impeachment inquiry request for documents and/or witnesses. If he did, the impeachment power of Congress is meaningless.
Merely a matter of opinion. The Supreme Court could have concluded the House didn't provide a fair process in the hearings. Plus the President does have a right to refuse documents and witnesses if he felt the right to have the Supreme Court weigh in.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Merely a matter of opinion. The Supreme Court could have concluded the House didn't provide a fair process in the hearings. Plus the President does have a right to refuse documents and witnesses if he felt the right to have the Supreme Court weigh in.

The Supreme Court should be counted on to provide a quick resolution to the question but it has not happened. They have effectively massively slow played every question asked of them so far in a complete abdication of responsibility.

The Court should weigh in, but they should have, months ago.
 
Upvote 0

camille70

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 4, 2007
3,658
3,538
Ohio
Visit site
✟597,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

camille70

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 4, 2007
3,658
3,538
Ohio
Visit site
✟597,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The Supreme Court should be counted on to provide a quick resolution to the question but it has not happened. They have effectively massively slow played every question asked of them so far in a complete abdication of responsibility.

The Court should weigh in, but they should have, months ago.

I've posted the following more than once, but I'll do it again since folks are arguing this should have gone through the courts. This was mentioned during today's proceedings. One thing to consider also, Trumps lawyers are in front of Chief Justice Roberts saying the dems need to go to court. Meanwhile the cases regarding McGahan and Trumps taxes are winding their way through the courts and may eventually end up in front of him where they have been arguing the opposite. I don't expect that things will go well at that time.

The WH has blocked witnesses and documents and are telling the public this needs to go through the courts. Once they are in court, the WH is arguing it's none of the courts business, and if the dems want witnesses and documents they need to impeach the president to get them, or block appointments and appropriations. Now that he's been impeached, they still aren't giving the information, claiming privilege, but if the info was actually privileged, none of the citizen groups would be able to get them via FOIA requests. The WH is feeding us lies, and for some reason few of his supporters have been able to discern this.

They are not acting in good faith. They are simply obstructing and stalling to cover up. You can bet your last dollar, if ANY of those folks had information beneficial to Trump, he'd be tweeting their quotes day and night.


Trump administration urges courts to stay out of impeachment fight in McGahn dispute


He seemed open to Trump administration arguments that courts should stay out of the “political food fight” between Congress and the White House over McGahn’s testimony. Congress has other ways, outside of the courts, of working its will, including cutting off appropriations, stopping the confirmation of judges, even impeachment, Griffith said. “That’s what the separation of powers means,” he said.

An eye on impeachment, judges weigh House-Trump disputes
 
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes they would. So why didn't the Democrats? All this evidence sitting out there and they didn't get any of it? It was their job! And they failed. Their job was to present all the evidence to the Senate. Why didn't they? The houses investigation was a sham, they don't have the evidence.
playing dumb? You know full well that the White House has refused to hand over evidence and has blocked the testimony of the people we all know have firsthand knowledge that can exonerate or implicate Trump. And you know that if the Dems use the court to challenge Trump’s blocking of all of the most important testimony, it would be tied up in court well past the election, giving Trump more time to abuse power. You know the Dems hands have been tied. Yet you act as if the Evidence was “sitting out there” and ask why they couldn’t get it, as if you didn’t know. That’s dishonest.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Nice to know the trial is going to be really serious and fair.

Nice to know the trial is going to be about as serious and fair as these and numerous other phony charges against Trump.

Seems fitting to me anyway.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I can't take the high ground on anyone. I'm just a sinner saved by grace.

And I know it.

People who fly planes to skyscrapers know they are going to paradise. Funny how that works for everyone.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Then why didn't they wait for the court cases to be handled so they could force him to turn everything over they subpoenaed? Like I said they didn't do their job. Instead of rushing and taking shortcuts they could have done it right. Instead they did it poorly, didn't investigate properly and now they want the Senate to do the job they should have done in the first place. Makes me wonder why.

Yeah...sure. It’s been since last April that the courts have been deliberating on McGahn’s subpoena. How long would everyone be waiting if every demand for evidence/documents went through the courts?

But that’s the strategy, isn’t it...?
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Yeah...sure. It’s been since last April that the courts have been deliberating on McGahn’s subpoena. How long would everyone be waiting if every demand for evidence/documents went through the courts?

But that’s the strategy, isn’t it...?
So what are you saying? Two branches of Government, the Executive and the Judaical are corrupt? Do away with them? Maybe just have a Monarchy headed up by the leader of the House?
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So what are you saying? Two branches of Government, the Executive and the Judaical are corrupt? Do away with them? Maybe just have a Monarchy headed up by the leader of the House?


No, I’m saying the strategy is obvious....s-t-r-e-t-c-h out the time frame as much as possible to lessen the impact of the evidence.

If Trump made a ‘perfect call’ and has done nothing wrong, you’d think he’d want all that evidence to be available as quick as possible.

Crooked as a dog’s hind leg...
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The Supreme Court should be counted on to provide a quick resolution to the question but it has not happened. They have effectively massively slow played every question asked of them so far in a complete abdication of responsibility.

The Court should weigh in, but they should have, months ago.
Well then they the Courts need to have legal and peaceful protests continually at their gate encouraging them to do their job. But the President's rights are still the President's rights. You don't bypass the Constitution which allows Executive Privilege due to the separation of powers.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Nice to know the trial is going to be about as serious and fair as these and numerous other phony charges against Trump.

Seems fitting to me anyway.

Ah phony charges eh? And obviously Trump and the Republicans are desperately trying to keep all evidence and witnesses hidden because they’d just hate being completely exonerated and making the Democrats look stupid.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
No, I’m saying the strategy is obvious....s-t-r-e-t-c-h out the time frame as much as possible to lessen the impact of the evidence.

Or maybe in that stretched out time people have time to make a proper assessment instead of rushing quickly to judgment? Ask yourself how long did the Clinton impeachment last ?
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Ah phony charges eh? And obviously Trump and the Republicans are desperately trying to keep all evidence and witnesses hidden because they’d just hate being completely exonerated and making the Democrats look stupid.
Once again the President has the right to exert Executive Privilege until such a time that the Supreme Court would rule in this case it does not apply.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Once again the President has the right to exert Executive Privilege until such a time that the Supreme Court would rule in this case it does not apply.

What drives me crazy isn’t that Trump or the GOP do this stuff. Bad dogs bite and water is wet. Criminals trying to cover up their crimes isn’t some huge shock. What drives me crazy is that so many people like you, just normal American voters who presumably just want a decent, well run country would rather support your own politicians than to see the truth. You guys are literally arguing on Trump’s behalf that you shouldn’t be allowed to see evidence or hear from witnesses that (if you’re right) would prove your guy innocent.

Think about that for a moment.
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Or maybe in that stretched out time people have time to make a proper assessment instead of rushing quickly to judgment? Ask yourself how long did the Clinton impeachment last ?

Rushing to judgement...??

If the Jowled One had his way, the ‘trial’ would be over tomorrow...!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums