Senate rejects impeachment witnesses, setting up Trump acquittal

[Zanting]

For the same reason the Senate has had witnesses in every impeachment trial prior to this. That and perhaps being a "do nothing" Senate -- not even allowing debate on over 400 bills passed by the House.

No comparison at all...and we all knew why before it was very clearly explained in the senate...but the democrats have to ignore the differences in order to support their stance...and well that failed...as it should have.

 

[Zanting]

The Senate didn’t have any witnesses testify.

That’s not a trial of any kind I’ve ever heard of.

Sure they did...they played and replayed their testimonies for all to see...their "overwhelming evidence" Ad Nauseam.

 

[Kentonio]

Well...not my party, but I do support the POTUS and all the great things he has done for his country...and the world. But I don't expect democrats or those against the POTUS to give credit where credit is due...they are too full of hatred and/or fear of exposure to stop attacking him...and they will be exposed and with the truth starring them straight in the face...they will still deny it...that's obvious and is evidenced from all their past attempts.

Sure, the likes of Sen. Alexander and Sen. Rubio are now NeverTrumpers. Ok then..

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

There must be...the POTUS will be acquitted...so someone is onto the truth

Yes, acquitted of breaking laws. And still ruining the country. A good for the future. Not.

 

[Albion]

Yes, acquitted of breaking laws. And still ruining the country.

That's what you get with Democracy.

 

[SimplyMe]

Yes, acquitted of breaking laws. And still ruining the country. A good for the future. Not.

Not acquitted. Not removed from office but, then again, it wasn't a criminal trial. It's even further driven home by the Republicans who acknowledge the President was wrong and that he did it, they just won't impeach him for it.

 

[Albion]

It's even further driven home by the Republicans who acknowledge the President was wrong and that he did it, they just won't impeach him for it.

The point is that they won't convict him for doing things that are not criminal. It's that thing about the Constitution, you know.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

The point is that they won't convict him for doing things that are not criminal. It's that thing about the Constitution, you know.

So Trump was wrong when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose support? If he did that the Senate would immediately kick him to the curb?

 

[SimplyMe]

The point is that they won't convict him for doing things that are not criminal. It's that thing about the Constitution, you know.

Again, read what the Founders stated about impeachment -- that it does require a "crime," but can, and should, be used for abuse of power.

 

[Albion]

So Trump was wrong when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose support?

When exactly did liberals lose all sense of humor? There are all the late-night talk show hosts and scads of standup comedians on their side and yet liberals cannot recognize a joke when it is made. Curious, isn't it? Or is it a deliberate thing?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

When exactly did liberals lose all sense of humor? There are all the late-night talk show hosts and scads of standup comedians on their side and yet liberals cannot recognize a joke when it is made. Curious, isn't it? Or is it a deliberate thing?

Yes/no, if Trump held up a Wendy’s you would want the Senate to remove him because that is a crime and deserving of removal from office?

 

[Kentonio]

When exactly did liberals lose all sense of humor? There are all the late-night talk show hosts and scads of standup comedians on their side and yet liberals cannot recognize a joke when it is made. Curious, isn't it? Or is it a deliberate thing?

Maybe ‘liberals’ just think that giving a corrupt president a free pass to subvert the next election isn’t particularly joke worthy?

 

[KCfromNC]

But the house democrats had 17 witness testimonies with "overwhelming evidence"...why would they need more?

Probably due to all the extra evidence that's been made available recently. You know, things like Bolton saying Donald did it, Parnas' recordings of him admitting to doing it, and so on.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have a problem with the OP Headline. It would seem to imply that rejecting witnesses has an role in acquittal. Acquittal was inevitable additional witnesses or not. When there is no case to be made for removal, acquittal is the only other option.

But that didn't happen in this case, so I'm not sure what it has to do with either the OP or the rest of the thread.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's what you get with Democracy.

One where a minority of voters get to override the good judgement of the majority.