GOP senators unanimously vote against seeing evidence

Bobber said:

Of course not. But if there's contention as to whether Congress has over reached it rightful authority the other party has the rightful place to have the Court weigh in.

Click to expand...

It would only be a question if "calling a witness" in a matter of oversight could possibly be an overreach.

whatbogsends said:

The "why" has been explained repeatedly.
Trump's corruption is about him trying to corruptly use his Presidential powers to coerce foreign nations to interfere with our elections.

Click to expand...

Again that's merely a speculative notion and one is innocent until PROVEN guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

Waiting until after the election is like waiting until after the fire has burned itself out to call the fire department.

Click to expand...

Good grief you make is seem like the nation is at near collapse. The economics are breaking all records for the good, unemployment the lowest in 50 years achieved in this mere three year period. Military is strong the country has the capacity to be energy independent. You still have three branches of government to keep whatever President in check but oh yeah....it was the House (controlled by Democratic politicians) that wouldn't respect the Courts to bring the balance....nope. By not going the way of the established institutions and doing a work around from them is the act which as you put it "burns down" the thing of GREAT VALUE.

Trump is notorious for delaying in the court system.

Click to expand...

Even if that was true why is that his fault? If Court systems need to make needed adjustments in how they carry out their work than put that criticism on them.

He loses case after case, but appeals keep the process in the courts forever.

Click to expand...

And why have let's call it THE PEOPLE allowed the courts to have an appeal process? If you get ride of it for one than where's equality under the law. The President may not be above the law but hold on now.....he most certainly should not be below it either.

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day, Rocks

No that is not required of the house they are called to make their case. They alone have the burden of proof. If the Senate feels they have failed in that responsibility then the adjudication will be that the accused is exonerated.

The Senate will have the final word and will send it's official finding of it's binding ruling over to the House.

That will be the end.

In Him,

Bill

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It doesn't appear to have any relationship to what I was talking about.

rjs330 said:

We all read the transcript.

Click to expand...

No, you didn’t, no matter how much Trump would have you believe.

What you saw was a selected summary, not a verbatim transcript...the actual document says so itself.

You saw what he wanted you to see. The irony is that it was still damning...

rjs330 said:

I believe in holding the House accountable for doing their job, not bringing some lame hack job to the Senate and asking them to do the job for them.

Click to expand...

The House is accountable but not the Senate? That's what I hear you inferring.

If Senators are upset that not enough evidence was presented by the House, let them look at 9 No show subpoenaed witnesses and the lawbreaker who prevented them from appearing. Let them look at the DOJ where the initials AG now stand for Accomplice General, who busies himself shielding the president by ignoring subpoenas and jetting off to futile witch hunts to find crimes that don't exist.
To whom much is given much is expected. He may not be answerable to 53 corrupt and opportunistic Senators, but he will have to answer to God.
If he gets the wake up call to repent and sin no more on earth, it may be a kindness that will prevent him from experiencing the well-deserved wrath of God when he dies.

rjs330 said:

And when they are impeached well hear from the left how unfare and crazy it is.

Click to expand...

Probably...but let's think about now: what are Conservatives doing? They are setting up the world of tomorrow where presidents are freely able to shake down foreign governments to help them win the next election!

If that doesn't bother you TODAY it will in a few years.

Allandavid said:

It is a process....one that can be made to last interminably...

Click to expand...

If that were true then no court case would ever get to trial. At some point it always comes to an end.

rjs330 said:

How about the Democrats just do their job. I read the transcript, I've heard the testimony. He didn't do anything wrong. The fact is the Dems had a lousy phony case, with a lousy phony investigation where they couldn't bother to follow through on. So, now it's time to let it go. You had your shot and blew it. If they were so convinced he was guilty they would have followed through. They didn't. Then they came up with these wimpy charges. It's ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Since you've read the transcript (call summary), has the WH said why Trump was asking the Ukraine President ro speak with his PERSONAL lawyer on an OFFICIAL call?

rjs330 said:

There was no evidence found. There was a bunch of people saying their beliefs, but that's not real evidence of wrong doing. Ukraine knew nothing about the aid, no investigation was ever announced, no investigation was demanded and no investigation was ever conducted. They got their aid and all was well. Trump followed the agreement and there was nothing wrong. In fact one of your important witnesses said Trump told him personally he wanted nothing. He also admitted no one in the whole world told him anything.

So presumption and assumption are illigitimate.

Click to expand...

They got some of their aid. They were shorted 30-40 million thanks to Trump.

Bobber said:

See what you've just done?????

That means I being in court am required to prove my innocence!

No, no, no a thousand times no! It's up to the accuser (the prosecutor) to prove my guilt not the other way around. Sorry but process matters.

The House didn't apply restraint to themselves and exercise due diligence in substantiating their case before bringing it to the Senate. They even admit that they haven't or they wouldn't be calling on Bolton and some others from Trump's team!

Click to expand...

Let's be honest here; they DID ask for all sorts of information from Trump et al. They SUBPOENAED a number of individuals, but for whatever reason apparently subpoenas don't carry much weight. (I hope the next time a Republican gets a subpoena to show up to court they try this little trick and see if THEY get to go all the way to the Supreme Court or if they just get thrown in jail. Hmmmm).

Trump CLAIMED over and over he was going to provide everything, but he never did. His people were told to violate the subpoenas and no documents were forthcoming.

Just remember: there has NEVER been an impeachment-related trial in the Senate without witnesses and documentary evidence introduced.

Why is Trump special? Is it because he is ABOVE THE LAW?

Allandavid said:

No, you didn’t, no matter how much Trump would have you believe.

What you saw was a selected summary, not a verbatim transcript...the actual document says so itself.

You saw what he wanted you to see. The irony is that it was still damning...

Click to expand...

So tell me then.....why isn't Trump's opposition making any big deal about this and from what I've seen even in the House's arguments before the Senate? Seems to me they know there's really NO substantial point to be made which would lead to such a criticism having validity. It seems that they've excepted that the transcript is the transcript and to me with all the leaking of everything going on if there was something there incriminating it'd be front and centre....the fact that the Democratic politicians are quite about it reveals there's nothing there.

The_Barmecide said:

Probably...but let's think about now: what are Conservatives doing? They are setting up the world of tomorrow where presidents are freely able to shake down foreign governments to help them win the next election!

If that doesn't bother you TODAY it will in a few years.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that didn't happen.

rjs330 said:

Yeah, that didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, I was just going by the transcript Trump put out. It's pretty clearly a shakedown.

Kentonio said:

If you’re ever on trial, do you expect to be able to tell the prosecution they can’t call any witnesses or subpoena any evidence? No of course not, because that would be utterly ridiculous. Except now because it’s Trump on trial you think that is ok.

Click to expand...

It's a new wonderful world we live in! Personally I going to change my political party to Republican because:

A) that will keep me safe when Trump's Brownshirts start rounding up Dems
B) It's clearly the party of "FUN-FUN-FUN"...there are literally no LAWS anymore! It's gonna be fun!

The_Barmecide said:

Let's be honest here; they DID ask for all sorts of information from Trump et al. They SUBPOENAED a number of individuals, but for whatever reason apparently subpoenas don't carry much weight. (I hope the next time a Republican gets a subpoena to show up to court they try this little trick and see if THEY get to go all the way to the Supreme Court or if they just get thrown in jail. Hmmmm).

Trump CLAIMED over and over he was going to provide everything, but he never did. His people were told to violate the subpoenas and no documents were forthcoming.

Just remember: there has NEVER been an impeachment-related trial in the Senate without witnesses and documentary evidence introduced.

Why is Trump special? Is it because he is ABOVE THE LAW?

Click to expand...

Nope he just forced the house to go through the legal process, which they failed to do. They impeached him for it. They didn't do their job and then impeached him for their failure.

The_Barmecide said:

Trump CLAIMED over and over he was going to provide everything, but he never did.

Click to expand...

He released the transcript. The whole case was about the transcript.

Kentonio said:

If you read the call summary (not transcript) and thought what he said was ok, then we have nothing else to talk about. You don’t understand what a crime is, you don’t understand how government is supposed to work, and I see absolutely no point in discussing it any further with you.

Click to expand...

And if you read it and found a crime there then you don't know what a crime is. You apparently don't understand how governments work. I don't recall if you were appauled at what Biden did. It doesn't seem that we have anything to discuss further. When the bias is this strong there is no point.