McConnell says he doesn't have enough votes to block witnesses

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Wall Street Journal said:
WASHINGTON—Republican leaders said they don’t currently have enough votes to block witnesses in President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, after his legal team concluded its efforts to counter Democrats’ charges that the president abused power and obstructed Congress.

On the third and final day of presentations by the Trump legal team, lawyers tried to cast doubts on the importance and credibility of allegations by former national security adviser John Bolton about the president’s motives for freezing aid to Ukraine.

But at a meeting of all Republican senators late Tuesday, GOP leaders told their conference that they don’t currently have the votes to prevent witnesses from being called, people familiar with the matter said. Republicans had hoped to wrap up the trial with an acquittal of the president by this week, but Democrats have said he should appear under oath to offer a firsthand account of the president’s motivations for freezing aid to Ukraine—a matter at the heart of the impeachment case.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said the vote total wasn’t where it needed to be on blocking witnesses or documents, these people said. He had a card with “yes,” “no,” and “maybes” marked on it, apparently a whip count, but he didn’t show it to senators.

WSJ News Exclusive | McConnell Says GOP Doesn’t Have Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses
 

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Why would you want to block witnesses? If you've got nothing to hide then surely their account will only reinforce that.

You would want to block witnesses because they might make it harder to vote to acquit the president.

McConnell has basically stated that he wants to bypass everything he can on his way to that goal, and he seems to be quite serious about it.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why would you want to block witnesses? If you've got nothing to hide then surely their account will only reinforce that.
Agreed. And as has been pointed out: why not have the people who can prove his innocence testify under oath nothing he did was wrong? :scratch:
tulc(just a thought)
 
Upvote 0

lismore

Maranatha
Oct 28, 2004
20,671
4,354
Scotland
✟242,456.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why would you want to block witnesses? If you've got nothing to hide then surely their account will only reinforce that.



Do not turn me over to the desire of my foes, for false witnesses rise up against me, spouting malicious accusations (Psalm 27:12)
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Why would you want to block witnesses? If you've got nothing to hide then surely their account will only reinforce that.

Because there's also a bigger picture that needs to be considered. I agree most of the mob really might not have the capacity to understand this but the question is.....EVEN IF what Bolton said is true.....does even that amount to an Impeachable offence? If the feeling is that it is not then why be wasting time with all this....why not get it over?

Mark my words if it goes down this road the issue would have to be addressed....is it an impeachable offence? I think most already agree it would not. So why not cut out the unnecessary wasting the tax payers time and money over a given?

I'm not a legal expert and perhaps couldn't work this way....but if it goes down this road I wonder before calling witnesses perhaps a vote should be brought forth to consider FIRST if Trump through clear documentation linked money to exactly having Biden investigated then FIRST is that an impeachable offence? Answering that FIRST before calling witnesses can do away with the purpose of even doing so. I think that's really the mindset of the majority of Senators now anyway.....so why have witnesses? So there's a perfectly just reason NOT to bring forth more witnesses.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do not turn me over to the desire of my foes, for false witnesses rise up against me, spouting malicious accusations (Psalm 27:12)
Proverbs 28: 13
Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.
tulc(always liked that Scripture) :wave:
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(snip)
I'm not a legal expert (snip)
Neither am I, but these guys are and they said President Trump broke the law:
GAO Finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
The independent watchdog said in an opinion issued Thursday that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld the appropriated funds last summer not as a programmatic delay but in order to advance the president’s own agenda.

By doing so, the watchdog concluded, the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).
So, wouldn't that meet the "high crimes" part of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" section
High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[5] A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.
tulc(just a thought) :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,063
✟1,077,148.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Because there's also a bigger picture that needs to be considered. I agree most of the mob really might not have the capacity to understand this but the question is.....EVEN IF what Bolton said is true.....does even that amount to an Impeachable offence?
If a dalliance with an intern and finessing the truth by saying it couldn't be intercourse if there was no penetration IS impeachable.....
Then how can coercing a foreign nation to find dirt on a political opponent and withholding congressionally approved aid--already branded "illegal" by the GAO--while the country, our ally, was 25% occupied by Russia and its people were desperate--NOT be impeachable?
If the president sensed corruption, our DOJ, which others can't count on but which Trump certainly can. Would have been the appropriate agency to conduct an investigation.
And so yes, a misdeed that endangers our national security is far more serious and impeachable than a president who is a little too frisky.
 
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

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It amazes me, people still don't get the point that both sides of this are going to allow/suppress everything that is not in their best interest, and this is normal for a court battle. The law allows them to try to block and the law allows for votes.

Some of you act as if the Dems would never do such a thing... do none of you recall their actions throughout the impeachment where they took advantage of all they were allowed to do in order to get a leg up?
 
Upvote 0

JohnAshton

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2019
2,197
1,580
88
Logan, Utah
✟45,911.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
One, an impeachable offense does not need to be an offense under the criminal statutes. This is settled law.

Two, if Trump did squeeze for an investigation by Ukraine into a political opponent, yes, that is an abuse of power and an impeachable offense.

Three, the Dems are going to win massively this fall, then fix the EC so that the GOP remains a permanent minority party.

Four, the GOP will never do this kind of unimaginable offenses against the country again.
 
Upvote 0

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
19,640
3,658
Midlands
Visit site
✟551,529.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
All testimony that is nothing more than speculation will be disallowed.
Therefore witnesses will be useless, because that is all they have. Speculation and assumption.
 
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

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,729
✟247,322.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm not a legal expert and perhaps couldn't work this way
That's fine. Impeachment isn't a legal process.

....but if it goes down this road I wonder before calling witnesses perhaps a vote should be brought forth to consider...

FIRST if Trump through clear documentation linked money to exactly having Biden investigated
Witnesses are important to determine this matter. Trump didn't write a book or an executive order. He passed on his desires for Ukraine policy by talking to people.

is that an impeachable offence?
This is a reasonable question. When a case is brought before a judge, the judge can throw the case out, rather than have a trial if they consider the case to be not relevant. But that would mean throwing out the trial. Which is vastly different to having a trial but throwing out witnesses and evidence.

What is meant by "impeachable offence"?
We are considering "impeachment and removal from office" here, not just impeachment. Trump has already been impeached.
As with any job, why would you consider removing a person from their job?
This is different to simply being the person's boss. Where you may have all sorts of reasons to want to remove them. But here we are talking about being "forced" to remove them.
Why "forced"? Because you cannot trust them to do the job that they are tasked with.

If a person is in a position of responsibility, then you must trust that this person is making choices that benefit the company/country first and foremost. This person, with responsibilities may have the power to approve spending, or to select products or vendors for the purpose of adding value to the company/country.
If this person is instead using their power and trusted authority over company/country funds to benefit themselves either to the detriment of the company/country or for no benefit at all for the company/country, then this person cannot be trusted to do their job.

If this person cannot be trusted to do their job, then they need to be removed.

If it is true that Trump put a smackdown on Ukraine (strategic ally) who were under extreme duress from Russia (common enemy), by withholding approved aid (USA assets) until they made a public announcement of an investigation into Trump's political rival leading up to the next USA presidential election. This would count as the person abusing their power, misusing country assets, abusing strategic allies, helping common enemies and corrupting the democratic process of elections for the purpose of personal gain. Is this the type of person you want continuing to have this power, continuing to have trusted authority over USA assets?
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,934
17,415
Finger Lakes
✟7,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
  • Like
Reactions: JohnAshton
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,063
✟1,077,148.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
He has already been impeached! What the Senate is deciding is whether to remove him from office. They will not.
Exactly. An acquittal will not change the facts, nor his guilt or innocence. An acquittal will be a charge to the American people to do in November what 53 cowardly Senators did not have the courage to do.

Democrats know what they're up against. And they also know how .Trump has been subverting our democracy. The case they are presenting isn't for the Republicans who are playing with fidgets, using their cell phones, walking out, and falling asleep. The case is for the American people--and while I think it is bulletproof despite Trump's best efforts to obstruct justice--every little bit more will help as America goes to the polls in November to reclaim our democracy.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,562
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,767
17,065
✟1,388,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All testimony that is nothing more than speculation will be disallowed.
Therefore witnesses will be useless, because that is all they have. Speculation and assumption.

IOW, if a witness was in the room speaking to or listening to the President, their testimony is purely speculative.
 
Upvote 0