Why is Schiff Witholding Documents?

[Aldebaran]

Was it, or was that only the mention of an investigation that was attempted? It seems the president doesn’t share quite the same concerns about the Bidens that he’s trying to get his base to express.

Has anything new been brought to the DoJ or the Attorney General with regards to the Bidens to open a new and legitimate investigation? It’s been like a year and the President has offered zero evidence of any corruption other than his unfounded allegations.

If it was, the democrats would say, "Now Trump is attempting to distract from his trial by trying to make it about Biden again!" Don't bother trying to convince us otherwise. It's being done already each time the Republicans find new evidence.

Actually it was the president’s corrupt motives and actions in Ukraine that led to the current mess.

His "actions in Ukraine" was a phone call. His motives as you portray them have not been proven.

Biden seems to see right through the charade the president’s defenders are trying to pull here by distracting from the president’s corrupt actions and shifting the focus onto the Bidens. The president failed to smear his opponent in Ukraine so he’s now trying to finish the job here in the Senate.

You just proved my first statement in this post.
All too easy!

 

[Aldebaran]

That's the party line -- "witch hunt."

We already know the verdict is a foregone conclusion, they see no sense wasting time going through the motions...

Correct. So what's the point of continuing this? I think the answer is obvious.

If the GOP thinks calling those witnesses can prove their case (and/or expose the Democrat corruption they keep howling about), they should vote to allow witnesses. With their simple majority, even a vote along party lines will bring those witnesses forward...

...so what is McConnell afraid of?

The GOP doesn't have a case to prove. The democrats do.

As I am not a juror, I am allowed to have an opinion.

And you're wrong -- almost the entire Senate has its mind made up about it... and with party lines being what they are, as I said, Donald's acquittal is in the bag.

Ok, so why keep the trial going if the entire Senate has it's mind made up and the acquittal is in the bag? I think the answer is obvious.

Because it's not for nothing. You're mistakenly assuming that convicting or acquitting Donald will be the only consequence of these proceedings. You've got to allow yourself to see the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is not in question. I think the answer is obvious.

I'll give you a hint: Impeachment is as much a political process as it is a legal one... possibly more so.

No hint is needed about the political process. I think the answer is obvious. The answer is that the democrats want to smear Trump just before the November election, or possibly even remove him from office so they can have better odds at winning the presidency in November. I think....in fact I know the answer is obvious. We all can see it. But Trump's haters just won't admit it. Oh well.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Not when the decision to impeach was made even before Trump was inaugurated. That alone is an indication of being an attempt to overturn an election. Here are just a few articles that were published between the 2016 and the inauguration:

Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump

The Trump Impeachment Fantasy Isn’t Realistic

Remove President Donald Trump (Impeachment) - Action Network

Grounds For Impeachment - Impeach Donald Trump Now

Talk of Impeaching Trump May Be Premature, But Its Time Will Come

There was plenty of talk about impeachment but that only goes to show for how long Republicans have been ignoring this president's obvious criminality and flouncing of the law, ethics, and democratic norms, traditions and procedures. That Trump managed to confirm their suspicions only makes the case supporting the president that much flimsier.

 

[wing2000]

I'm beginning to think they should. Then we could see that evidence and get to hear from the witnesses we'd like to hear from, which is far more in number than the number of witnesses Schiff & Company would like to hear from. In addition, it would keep the Senators who want to be president busy.

"....beginning to think." So to be clear, until now, you don't believe the US Senate has a constitutional duty to conduct a trial with witnesses?

 

[Aldebaran]

There was plenty of talk about impeachment but that only goes to show for how long Republicans have been ignoring this president's obvious criminality and flouncing of the law, ethics, and democratic norms, traditions and procedures. That Trump managed to confirm their suspicions only makes the case supporting the president that much flimsier.

The fact remains that the democrats had decided to impeach Trump even before he took office. Waiting to come up with enough excuses to do it 3 years later just before an election is an indication that they knew they had no real case for doing it. It was only when Pelosi felt enough pressure from AOC and Company (the most extremist part of their party) that she went forward with it just before the 2020 election rather than simply letting the voters decide for themselves in that election whether or not they want Trump to remain in office.

 

[Aldebaran]

"....beginning to think." So to be clear, until now, you don't believe the US Senate has a constitutional duty to conduct a trial with witnesses?

The witnesses were heard in the House. The dems were obviously satisfied enough with the case they made that they drafted those 2 articles of impeachment and (reluctantly) handed them over to the Senate. Are they no longer confident in their case?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If it was, the democrats would say, "Now Trump is attempting to distract from his trial by trying to make it about Biden again!" Don't bother trying to convince us otherwise. It's being done already each time the Republicans find new evidence.

Bringing up the Bidens supposed corruption in Ukraine is an obvious distraction. Did you forget who is on trial in this impeachment? It's not Joe Biden nor his son Hunter, nor the House Democrats. It is an impeachment of the President of the United States. Anyone else's crimes should be brought up in a separate investigation and trial.

His "actions in Ukraine" was a phone call.

Where he solicits a foreign country to investigate a presidential candidate for him.

His motives as you portray them have not been proven.

They've not been legitimately defended either. Circumstantial evidence and direct testimony from the people handling the issue shows his motives were personal and political in nature and thus, corrupt motives.

You just proved my first statement in this post.
All too easy!

Not at all. The president is certainly free to look into corruption. Thus far, he hasn't done that. There was talk of an investigation in Ukraine that he never got and then.... nothing else really.

What's stopping the DoJ from pursuing a legitimate claim of corruption of the former VP? It seems important to you and the rest of the Republican base and yet, there's nothing to show for it other than wild, baseless accusations from the president.

 

[wing2000]

The witnesses were heard in the House. The dems were obviously satisfied enough with the case they made that they drafted those 2 articles of impeachment and (reluctantly) handed them over to the Senate. Are they no longer confident in their case?

"....beginning to think." So to be clear, until now, you don't believe the US Senate has a constitutional duty to conduct a trial with witnesses?

Yes or no.

 

[Aldebaran]

Bringing up the Bidens supposed corruption in Ukraine is an obvious distraction. Did you forget who is on trial in this impeachment? It's not Joe Biden nor his son Hunter, nor the House Democrats. It is an impeachment of the President of the United States. Anyone else's crimes should be brought up in a separate investigation and trial.

Any investigation started now (or at any time after accusations were made against Trump) would be portrayed as nothing more than a distraction attempt.

Where he solicits a foreign country to investigate a presidential candidate for him.

I don't remember any mention in the call of Biden being a presidential candidate. In fact, Biden still hasn't been made the democrat nominee. In fact, nobody has.

They've not been legitimately defended either. Circumstantial evidence and direct testimony from the people handling the issue shows his motives were personal and political in nature and thus, corrupt motives.

Accusations from one side prove nothing.

Not at all. The president is certainly free to look into corruption. Thus far, he hasn't done that. There was talk of an investigation in Ukraine that he never got and then.... nothing else really.

The democrats and the impeachment hearings they started had no influence in that, right? Is that what you'd like us to believe?

What's stopping the DoJ from pursuing a legitimate claim of corruption of the former VP? It seems important to you and the rest of the Republican base and yet, there's nothing to show for it other than wild, baseless accusations from the president.

You know darn well that it would be portrayed by the dems and their friends in the media as nothing more than an attempt to divert attention away from the trial.

 

[Aldebaran]

"....beginning to think." So to be clear, until now, you don't believe the US Senate has a constitutional duty to conduct a trial with witnesses?

Yes or no.

Are my thought suddenly on trial here?

 

[wing2000]

Are my thought suddenly on trial here?

I asked a question. You chose to answer with another question, sidestepping my question.

 

[Aldebaran]

I asked a question. You chose to answer with another question, sidestepping my question.

Then hold me in contempt of website. You seem to think my thoughts are on trial.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Any investigation started now (or at any time after accusations were made against Trump) would be portrayed as nothing more than a distraction attempt.

Nonsense! The problem is the attempt to turn the impeachment of Donald Trump into a trial on the Bidens. That is a distraction.

An independent investigation into the Bidens is not outside the president's power or legal purview and besides, since when has public opinion ever stopped Trump from pursuing his agenda? If he has a legitimate concern of corruption then people's commentary on it shouldn't dissuade him from looking further into it.

That is... if he really cares or really has a legitimate concern.

I don't remember any mention in the call of Biden being a presidential candidate. In fact, Biden still hasn't been made the democrat nominee. In fact, nobody has.

Biden's campaign started in April of last year. Well ahead of the time period in question. It is not a stretch to consider, even at that time, that Biden would be a strong challenger to the president in the coming election. Technically, the president has not yet been nominated by the RNC either. Should we also assume he's not going to be a candidate in the upcoming election? You know that sounds silly.

Accusations from one side prove nothing.

Correct. Evidence and testimony proves the charges.

The democrats and the impeachment hearings they started had no influence in that, right? Is that what you'd like us to believe?

They thwarted his scheme. Yes. That's the correct thing to do when you uncover evidence of a crime or corrupt act. If the president has evidence of the Bidens committing a crime, he is in fact, required by law to have it investigated.

So... Why hasn't he?

You know darn well that it would be portrayed by the dems and their friends in the media as nothing more than an attempt to divert attention away from the trial.

And again, that should not stop the president from doing his job. What seems to be stopping him from going further into this is either disinterest in the case or lack of any legitimate concerns to pursue.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Correct. So what's the point of continuing this? I think the answer is obvious.

I think the answer is obvious as well... but I suspect my answer is different from yours.

Tell me yours and I'll tell you mine.

The GOP doesn't have a case to prove. The democrats do.

This is true in the strictly legal sense -- the Defense is not required to "do" anything; the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But remember what I said about impeachment being as much political as it is legal... Following Donald's lead (as always) the GOP has made some pretty wild accusations -- doing nothing will save his skin, but unless they can substantiate at least some of what they claim, who's going to save theirs?

They can turn the GOP into the "Defend Donald" party, but they have to remember that some of them will have to survive in a post-Donald political landscape. Donald will vacate the Oval Office someday -- When (12:00 on January 20, 2025 at the absolute latest) and how (only six ways for it to happen; and one of them definitely will) remains to be seen.

What happens to them when their Great Leader is gone?

Ok, so why keep the trial going if the entire Senate has it's mind made up and the acquittal is in the bag? I think the answer is obvious.

I think the answer is obvious as well... but I suspect my answer is different from yours.

Tell me yours and I'll tell you mine.

The bigger picture is not in question. I think the answer is obvious.

You're not thinking like a career politician, which 90% of the Senate consists of.

The bigger picture is always in question.

No hint is needed about the political process. I think the answer is obvious. The answer is that the democrats want to smear Trump just before the November election, or possibly even remove him from office so they can have better odds at winning the presidency in November. I think....in fact I know the answer is obvious. We all can see it. But Trump's haters just won't admit it. Oh well.

A deal's a deal -- you've told me your answer, so I'll tell you mine.

Hate cuts both ways. Even Donald's supporters freely admit they don't like him, but they hate the alternative. That's fair enough; I concede that the Democratic field is pretty lackluster. So Donald is more or less the lesser of all possible evils -- agreed?

Which means that not only is Donald's acquittal a guarantee, but so is his reelection.

Now, here's where we disagree -- I think the Democratic Party is fully aware of this. But while "hatred of the alternative" protects Donald, it doesn't protect his minions in Congress. Remember, they have to run for re-election as well, and with the whole world seeing them debase themselves to protect Donald, some of the alternatives to them might seem quite palatable indeed...

Biden will get the nomination, but impeachment or not, we both know he doesn't stand a chance. But November isn't just about the White House: the House is up for re-election (which I'm predicting won't flip), as is a third of the Senate -- which this time around, will be 22 GOP incumbents and only 12 Dems, which includes one of Donald's chief cheerleaders: Graham, and the keeper of the graveyard where progress goes to die: McConnell.

The Dems know that they can't get rid of Donald, but if they can expose his minions as... well, his minions, flipping the Senate will neuter him quite nicely.

Like I said, Alde... there's always a bigger picture.

 

[JohnAshton]

Then testimony from his own mouth will be forever withheld? It would be a shame to not hear of the whistleblower's supposed non-collusion with Schiff.

His testimony is not required.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then testimony from his own mouth will be forever withheld? It would be a shame to not hear of the whistleblower's supposed non-collusion with Schiff.

Funny how this contradicts all of the innocent until proven guilty, if there's no proof there's no need to testify messaging we've been hearing.

But I guess talking points don't need to be consistent with each other, just truthy-sounding enough to quiet the nagging doubts until another time.

 

[KCfromNC]

To that end, the Democrats have lots of people they want to testify as witnesses... the Republicans have... ?

Complaints about an imaginary cow. Wanting to talk about burritos .. or was it tacos .. or maybe another food, I can't keep the complaints straight. Lots of Russian propaganda. Secret meetings and calls with people who are now under indictment. Oh, and claims that anything a President does to get reelected is off-limits of impeachment.

I'm probably missing something, it's been quite the circus.

 

[KCfromNC]

Correct. So what's the point of continuing this?

New information keeps coming out which makes it harder and harder for the GOP to risk their election chances by supporting Donald. Seems like waiting for the will of the people isn't a bad thing in a representative democracy.

 

[rjs330]

How silly. By that logic every impeachment is an “overturning” of an election. It’s a trial into an elected official’s actions so obviously there was an election at some point before the impeachment. That’s not a logical objection to the process.

The impeachment trial for the president is not the place to address corruption on the part of the Democrats. Open an investigation into them if you think something’s amiss but don’t try to distract from the fact that this trial solely concerns the actions of the current president, not the former Vice President or his son.

Stop ignoring the issue at hand and trying to distract the rest of us from it as well. It’s not working.

It's the motive behind this one. They've been trying to get this president since he took office. And this case is another shining example. They don't have any real evidence. But they went through it anyway.

They did it in hopes they would find something bad enough to get him removed. And when they realized that it was "let's do this anyway." They are hoping it will keep Trump from being re-elected. I guess we'll find out in November how well that worked.

 

[rjs330]

Bringing up the Bidens supposed corruption in Ukraine is an obvious distraction. Did you forget who is on trial in this impeachment? It's not Joe Biden nor his son Hunter, nor the House Democrats. It is an impeachment of the President of the United States. Anyone else's crimes should be brought up in a separate investigation and trial.

Where he solicits a foreign country to investigate a presidential candidate for him.

They've not been legitimately defended either. Circumstantial evidence and direct testimony from the people handling the issue shows his motives were personal and political in nature and thus, corrupt motives.


Not at all. The president is certainly free to look into corruption. Thus far, he hasn't done that. There was talk of an investigation in Ukraine that he never got and then.... nothing else really.

What's stopping the DoJ from pursuing a legitimate claim of corruption of the former VP? It seems important to you and the rest of the Republican base and yet, there's nothing to show for it other than wild, baseless accusations from the president.

Unfortunately the DOJ can't really do anything outside this country. They can request, but they have no authority to investigate things that happened outside their jurisdiction without the countries cooperation.

And the Dems have no case other than opinions, supposition and presumptions. What person testified that they had first hand knowledge that it was personal and political in nature? What did the president say to them to show that?

You only had one guy who had one on one with the president and the president told him directly he wanted nothing from Ukraine.