GOP Senators vote that Overwhelming Evidence should be more than sufficient

[BobRyan]

Ok, they just voted along pure partisan lines to not subpoena any documents from the White House. .

Amazing to me that we suddenly find that we got NO EVIDENCE at all out of the house investigation... even though what is now being portrayed as "no evidence at all" for impeachment - was being gift wrapped and handed to the Senate as "OVERWHELMING" evidence.

Evidence has been posted numerous times .. The evidence is abundant, your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't change it.

Now we have some level of agreement between the GOP and some democrats who claim the evidence has already reached their goal of what they call "abundant" and "overwhelming" evidence. The Senate then is justified in claiming that the democratic party case "rests" now - with what democratic politicians (democrats in the House and Senate) call "overwhelming and abundant" evidence.

How shocking that only having overwhelming evidence -- is now NO Evidence even by the standards of those who are on the side of impeachment .. as they complain about Senators not demanding "more evidence"!

Democrats in the house who joined in the bipartisan vote against impeachment must be feeling pretty good about that result - just about now.

Vote now confirmed. No evidence to be subpoena’d from the State Department either. Nothing to see here..

Yep -- we are stuck with "OVERWHELMING" evidence. and nothing more.

BTW: The BIpartisan line on impeachment voted in the house - was against it.

=================================

And of course - there is always this -- Laura Ingraham shows emails tying alleged Ukraine whistleblower to Obama White House meeting on Burisma

================================== and of course

from; What a Nixon-era law means for Trump, Ukraine aid

If the president is asking to permanently rescind money, Congress must give its approval. But if Congress does not pass a bill approving the retraction within 45 days, the money must be made available for spending, according to the law.

If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required. But the president still has to send Congress a "special message" to let it know. There are other requirements, too.

For example, the act says a request to delay spending is "permissible" only if the hold provides for unforeseen contingencies, saves money or is specifically provided by law. Spending cannot be stalled through the end of the fiscal year, either.

=======================

An example of "overwhelming evidence".

Things get moving at a pretty good pace about 18:24 into that video of overwhelming evidence.

but for those with much less time to look into the actual facts...take a look at the video 49:55 min:sec to 53:10

There we find "the two people" that actually testified and also said they spoke directly to the president about quid pro quo topic with Ukraine and the aid to be given to the Ukraine.

or 51:05 to 53:10 if you prefer.

A little over 2 minutes for those interested in the facts at that level.

 

[HTacianas]

Amazing to me that we suddenly find that we got NO EVIDENCE at all out of the house investigation... even though what is now being portrayed as "no evidence at all" for impeachment - was being gift wrapped and handed to the Senate as "OVERWHELMING" evidence.

How shocking that only having overwhelming evidence -- is now NO Evidence!



Yep -- we are stuck with "OVERWHELMING" evidence. and nothing more.

BTW: The BIpartisan line on impeachment voted in the house - was against it.

I need a law that was violated.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Amazing to me that we suddenly find that we got NO EVIDENCE at all out of the house investigation... even though what is now being portrayed as "no evidence at all" for impeachment - was being gift wrapped and handed to the Senate as "OVERWHELMING" evidence.

How shocking that only having overwhelming evidence -- is now NO Evidence!



Yep -- we are stuck with "OVERWHELMING" evidence. and nothing more.

There is plenty of evidence. That’s how the articles were drafted. If there was no additional evidence the White House wouldn’t be doing its absolute best to avoid it getting out. If the evidence they have could somehow exonerate the president you better believe they’d be sharing it with the House, Senate and the American People.

What innocent party wouldn’t?

BTW: The BIpartisan line on impeachment voted in the house - was against it.

That’s not true. One of the Representatives that voted in favor of the impeachment was a former Republican turned Independent, Justin Amash. That is just about as bipartisan as the votes against the impeachment so it’s a wash.

 

[Albion]

Amazing to me that we suddenly find that we got NO EVIDENCE at all out of the house investigation... even though what is now being portrayed as "no evidence at all" for impeachment - was being gift wrapped and handed to the Senate as "OVERWHELMING" evidence.

It is almost too obvious, if one listened to Schiff or Nadler speaking to the Senate, that they simply state that the president did something or other IN ORDER TO BENEFIT HIMSELF.

What follows that claim is a lot of talk about who said what to whom, but never anything about why we or the Senate should think that the president's motives--which are essential to verifying the charges--have been proven.

Rather, it is merely stipulated that he wanted to hurt a potential political opponent or else to somehow "rig" the coming presidential election...as though talking to the Ukrainian government could do that.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It is almost too obvious, if one listened to Schiff or Nadler speaking to the Senate, that they simply state that the president did something or other IN ORDER TO BENEFIT HIMSELF.

Who else was it supposed to benefit? Me? You? The Ukrainians? No one has really stated how Trump’s demands would help anyone other than himself and we don’t have to all be poli-sci experts to understand that making your opponent look bad with frivolous investigations could really put a damper on their electoral ambitions.

What follows that claim is a lot of talk about who said what to whom, but never anything about why we or the Senate should think that the president's motives--which are essential to verifying the charges--have been proven.

It sure would help if we had the president’s closest associates that were involved to testify under oath as to what they believe his intentions might have been so no one has to assume but apparently, the majority in the Senate isn’t interested in hearing from fact witnesses.

Rather, it is merely stipulated that he wanted to hurt a potential political opponent or else to somehow "rig" the coming presidential election...as though talking to the Ukrainian government could do that.

Without any evidence to the contrary what other conclusion could any reasonable person come to?

 

[Paulos23]

I need a law that was violated.

High crimes and mistameners.

Clearly.

 

[DavidPT]

Without any evidence to the contrary what other conclusion could any reasonable person come to?

But there is evidence to the contrary, overwhelming evidence actually. Both Trump and Zelensky, the two talking on the phone with each other, and if anyone should know, you would think they should, both said that nothing in the phone call involves anything House Democrats are trying to accuse Trump of. And so what if Trump has lied about things hundreds of times in the past, that doesn't prove he is lying about any of this, even pathological liars tell the truth every now and then. Especially the fact Zelensky is backing him up on this rather than contradicting him, thus proving Trump is not lying about this.

 

[HTacianas]

High crimes and mistameners.

Clearly.

That's what they keep saying.

 

[Paulos23]

That's what they keep saying.

Do you need an actual law? Or is abuse of power and blocking Congress over and over again not enough?

The President Office is not above the rest of the government. If it can't be checked by Congress, then we are no longer a Republic.

We are going down a path that we can't go back easily if we do not take the fork in the road our forefathers gave us.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I need a law that was violated.

That is how the other 3 impeachments worked......

 

[Albion]

Do you need an actual law? Or is abuse of power and blocking Congress over and over again not enough?

No. It's not enough, and that's putting mildly a claim that the president has some sort of obligation to allow the executive branch of the government to be run by the legislative branch (or half of it, to be more precise) in addition to its own business.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What innocent party wouldn’t?

MR. PRESIDENT, YOU MUST PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE.....
Goldenby89 where did you get your law degree?......from a Cracker Jack box?LOLOLOL
The more desperate the left gets the funnier they get.....

 

[GoldenBoy89]

But there is evidence to the contrary, overwhelming evidence actually. Both Trump and Zelensky, the two talking on the phone with each other, and if anyone should know, you would think they should, both said that nothing in the phone call involves anything House Democrats are trying to accuse Trump of.

Ah yes, the defendant and his co-conspirator.

Next we’ll ask the getaway driver for the bank robber’s real intentions at the bank the day of the robbery.

And so what if Trump has lied about things hundreds of times in the past, that doesn't prove he is lying about any of this, even pathological liars tell the truth every now and then. Especially the fact Zelensky is backing him up on this rather than contradicting him, thus proving Trump is not lying about this.

I’ll just say it now so we get this out of the way. I have zero reason to believe or trust president Zelensky when as far as I can tell, he’s just as guilty as Trump is in this scheme. He does come from “one of the most corrupt countries in the world” after all...

So let’s address Trump’s well documented relationship with the truth instead.

Sure, it’s possible that despite having lied on a near daily basis about even the smallest, most insignificant things in his life and career, it is entirely possible that he’s not lying about the one thing that’s threatening to end his presidency prematurely and leave him with a tarnished reputation worse than Richard Nixon’s.

It’s possible. Not very likely, but certainly within the realm of possibilities. Sometimes people surprise us.

 

[HTacianas]

Do you need an actual law? Or is abuse of power and blocking Congress over and over again not enough?

The President Office is not above the rest of the government. If it can't be checked by Congress, then we are no longer a Republic.

We are going down a path that we can't go back easily if we do not take the fork in the road our forefathers gave us.

Yes. I need an actual law. If there is no law but a person can still be convicted we are no longer a nation of laws.

The Democrats have two choices:

1. Extortion. Prohibited by statute. But they won't change Trump with extortion because the victim has already stated publicly that he was not extorted.

2. Violation of campaign finance laws. Prohibited by statute but normally punished by administrative fine or less. American people respond with "what?"

There is no crime.

 

[Paulos23]

No. It's not enough, and that's putting a claim that the president has some sort of obligation to allow the executive branch of the government to run the presidency as well as its own business...mildly.

Congress doesn't have to run the executive branch, but it can and should question actions taken (or not) on laws Congress has passed. As well as actions that go around government channels that have been set up and used for generations.

Withholding aid approved by Congress for an additional action is abuse. Just because Trump released the aid after he was caught does not help the abuse case.

What you are suggesting is that there are no breaks on Trumps power. If that is so, the Republic is lost.

Just so you can have the winning feeling and own the libs.

 

[HTacianas]

That is how the other 3 impeachments worked......

Bill Clinton committed perjury. Prohibited by statute. I never thought he should have been removed for it because lying under oath is seldom prosecuted.

Nixon actively concealed a crime. Prohibited by statute.

Johnson [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off his political opponents. Was not removed from office.

Which one is most like the impeachment of Trump?

 

[Bobber]

The President Office is not above the rest of the government. If it can't be checked by Congress, then we are no longer a Republic.

And if Congress can't be checked by the Executive Branch and the Courts you're not either.

We are going down a path that we can't go back easily if we do not take the fork in the road our forefathers gave us.

And so why didn't the Democratic politicians allow everything to go through the Courts? It was the Forefathers that set that system up.

 

[Albion]

Congress doesn't have to run the executive branch, but it can and should question actions taken (or not) on laws Congress has passed.

They can question all they want. That is fair. It also is not what we are discussing here.

What you are suggesting is that there are no breaks on Trumps power.

...and THAT ridiculous accusation is very much in the vein of the outrageous, over-the-top, claims that Schiff and Nadler have been inventing lately.

Of course I have not said anything approaching "no breaks [sic] on Trump's power."

 

[Paulos23]

Yes. I need an actual law. If there is no law but a person can still be convicted we are no longer a nation of laws.

The Democrats have two choices:

1. Extortion. Prohibited by statute. But they won't change Trump with extortion because the victim has already stated publicly that he was not extorted.

2. Violation of campaign finance laws. Prohibited by statute but normally punished by administrative fine or less. American people respond with "what?"

There is no crime.

The reason it is phrased "High crimes and mistameners" is because the founders knew there would be times when the President would abuse their power and still be on the legal side.

In that case, you could call for extortion and indict him. But wait, you can't according to the DOJ.

And around and around we go. At what point will you look at his actions and say he has abused power? Ignoring Congress? Getting another country to look into his top policial rival for money and favors? Allowing other countries to interfer in our elections and not denouncing it?

What is the limit?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Bill Clinton committed perjury. Prohibited by statute. I never thought he should have been removed for it because lying under oath is seldom prosecuted.

I agree with that, censure by both houses should have sufficed.

Nixon actively concealed a crime. Prohibited by statute.

Agree....

Johnson [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off his political opponents. Was not removed from office.

Johnson was in violation of a law that was on the books at the time. IIRC, it was later removed pending an unconstitutional ruling from SCOTUS(?).