Could the impeachment process cost the Dems among Independents?

[KCfromNC]

Did they get to call in the witnesses they wanted to testify?

Yes. I mean, those witnesses decided that it was more important to tell the truth that to toe the GOP line, but you can't blame that on the majority committee members.

 

[KCfromNC]

Accusations are never meant to show someone in a favorable light.

That's great and all, but I was talking about the evidence backing up those accusations.

 

[Aldebaran]

Trump blocked several witnesses from testifying. That is a well-known fact. Democrats subpoenaed them. So there is no reason to blame Adam Schiff for only one self-identified Republican testifying under oath in the last two weeks. Sondland did so against Trump's orders to ignore his subpoena.

Did the Republicans ever get to call in the witnesses they wanted to testify?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Did the Republicans ever get to call in the witnesses they wanted to testify?

Were they supposed to as the minority party?

 

[Aldebaran]

Were they supposed to as the minority party?

Then it's true that we're really only hearing one side of the story.
I look forward to the Senate version of the process.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Then it's true that we're really only hearing one side of the story.

I look forward to the Senate version of the process.

That is because the Senate can't do anything about it until after Nancy Pelosi announces Donald Trump is impeached. That is why only Mitch McConnell talks about having a trial.

 

[Aldebaran]

That is because the Senate can't do anything about it until after Nancy Pelosi announces Donald Trump is impeached. That is why only Mitch McConnell talks about having a trial.

I'm sure she'll do exactly that, or the rest of the party would go after her for betraying all the time and effort they've put into impeaching him. She didn't stand up to the extremists in her party who wanted the hearings, so she won't stand up to them when they demand a certain result either. Thankfully, it will result in the Senate taking it up and then we can finally get the other side of the story.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I'm sure she'll do exactly that, or the rest of the party would go after her for betraying all the time and effort they've put into impeaching him. She didn't stand up to the extremists in her party who wanted the hearings, so she won't stand up to them when they demand a certain result either. Thankfully, it will result in the Senate taking it up and then we can finally get the other side of the story.

She will do it only because at least 218 representatives will vote for it. Plain and simple. It is only about obeying the Constitution, not politics. That cannot be denied by anyone who graduated from high school.

 

[A_Thinker]

What they are claiming he did is EXACTLY what Biden admits to having done himself.

Not quite accurate.

Biden was acting to enforce official US policy. He didn't have the authority to withhold funds on his own.

OTOH, Trump leaned on Ukraine to pursue his own PERSONAL agenda, as opposed to US policy ...

 

[Aldebaran]

She will do it only because at least 218 representatives will vote for it. Plain and simple. It is only about obeying the Constitution, not politics. That cannot be denied by anyone who graduated from high school.

Obeying the constitution? More like catering to the extremists in her party. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was the one who wanted impeachment hearings so badly:
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

But like someone with a short attention span, she's already over it:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Impeachment Is "Boring" | National Review

Hiding behind the idea that this is all about serving the constitution is weak.

 

[GodLovesCats]

If you don't know it is all about obeying the Constitution, you either never learned or totally forgot what I was taught in high school that it takes a simple majority (218 votes) for the President to be impeached if, as is the case now, he committed "bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors."

 

[Aldebaran]

If you don't know it is all about obeying the Constitution, you either never learned or totally forgot what I was taught in high school that it takes a simple majority (218 votes) for the President to be impeached if, as is the case now, he committed "bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors."

Just because it takes 218 votes to impeach a president doesn't mean it's a duty to cast 218 votes. If they want to obey the constitution, they'd accept that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." However, they are selective in what parts of the constitution they like obeying.

 

[Bobber]

Were they supposed to as the minority party?

What's that got to do with a fair and legal process? Absolutely nothing.

 

[Bobber]

She will do it only because at least 218 representatives will vote for it. Plain and simple. It is only about obeying the Constitution, not politics. That cannot be denied by anyone who graduated from high school.

The spirit of the Constitution on these matter DID NOT insist Pelosi go down the road in conducting a pure partisan exercise! She absolutely KNEW THIS at the beginning but caved into less than noble motives for going ahead. And to use your way you've put this "anyone who graduated from high school" KNOWS THIS.

 

[Bobber]

Biden was acting to enforce official US policy. He didn't have the authority to withhold funds on his own.

Funny how Obama hasn't said a word about this. No?

 

[GodLovesCats]

The spirit of the Constitution on these matter DID NOT insist Pelosi go down the road in conducting a pure partisan exercise! She absolutely KNEW THIS at the beginning but caved into less than noble motives for going ahead. And to use your way you've put this "anyone who graduated from high school" KNOWS THIS.

There is no reason to think Pelosi is doing it for any political purpose. She was the one who refuse to impeach Trump without bipartisan support, which is proof that she only cares about obeying the U.S. Constitution, not partisan play.

 

[Aldebaran]

There is no reason to think Pelosi is doing it for any political purpose. She was the one who refuse to impeach Trump without bipartisan support, which is proof that she only cares about obeying the U.S. Constitution, not partisan play.

Is a vote that includes all democrats except for 2 voting in favor, with all Republicans voting against it considered to be bipartisan?
Sure sounds like partisan play to me.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Is a vote that includes all Democrats except for 2 voting in favor, with all Republicans voting against it considered to be bipartisan?

Sure sounds like partisan play to me.

You are purposely ignoring the whole point of my post. Pelosi did not want to impeach him on party lines. Therefore it was obviously not partisan play, just about obeying the law.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then it's true that we're really only hearing one side of the story.

That's not true. The GOP witnesses also testified that Donald tried to condition a weapons deal on the president of a foreign government interfering in our election.

If the story from both sets of witnesses sounds "one side"d, that should probably tell people something.

 

[KCfromNC]

Funny how Obama hasn't said a word about this. No?

No. Don't interrupt the enemy when they are busy making mistakes.