The Defense Rests: GOP Leaders Reportedly Considering Not Calling a Single Witness

And he didn’t say campaign either or domestic political rival or political rival or anything like that but here you are acting like he did. You truly learned NOTHING from the Smollet incident. Nothing at all.

No reason to respond as I truly don’t care about your still extremely biased and partisan opinions.

 

It's Constitutional if the House votes for it and that vote mandates the Senate "trial."
What are you afraid of? I am sure the President wants the opportunity to clear his name. Maybe he'll exercise his due process right and appear personally. Isn't that what he wants?

 

Quite the contrary.

Idiot Congressional democrats ran their hearings as they saw fit, with little regard for what the Republicans wanted. Likewise, the GOP should conduct the trial as they see fit, undeterred by the whining which is sure to come from the left. If a "not guilty" verdict is handed down after only an hour of testimony and deliberation, then that's the end of it, because it actually WILL answer the question regarding Trump's guilt or innocence. He will be judged an innocent man.

And liberal heads will detonate...

The Senate can, and should, do whatever they want. They are not duty bound to do what Congress wants...

 

You don't realize they were talking corruption, that's your problem not Trump and Zelensky's. Pretty much discounts anything you have to say on the matter.

 

Yeah, but investigating a guy who threatens to withhold aid in a corrupt country where his drug addict son is working for a corrupt company when he's the VP in charge of Ukraine...

That ****'s impeachable.

 

**** mercy.

Shut this down and then take every single Democrat who tried to impeach to SCOTUS for abuse of power.

 

The Senate prides itself on the individualism of its members...regardless of Party. Each Senator speaks for their State, not the smaller districts of the Congressional Representatives in the House. Consequently, theoretically, the proceedings in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, will be both more "dignified" and considerate of the minority. The former probably excludes personal testimony by the President, but the latter probably insured a more balanced approach to the "rules."
Oh yeah...in regard to your last sentence...most Americans would count the Senate as a part of Congress.

 

If the investigation is put off until "later," it will never happen. The only way there is going to be a Biden investigation is as part of an impeachment trial. Graham and McConnell, for some reason, don't want any investigation into the Ukraine, Burisma, or the Bidens. So if the impeachment trial takes six months, with lots of subpoenas, I'm good with it. Let's get everything investigated and out in the open because an impeachment trial will be the only opportunity for that. Otherwise a short trial and an acquittal will make it look like the partisan GOP majority in the Senate breezed through to give Trump a freebie. It needs to be clear that this was a set up from the beginning, and the only way to do that is a long trial with lots of witnesses.

 

Eh yeah...but does anyone actually think Biden is going to win the nomination and face Trump in the election? Not going to happen.

 

Wrong. The constitution requires treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors, none of which the House has evidence of.

The reason for a quick dismissal by the Senate is to not only acquit the President, but to enforce the integrity of our constitution as well, so that future presidents are not subject to the congressional abuse of power this president has been subject to.

 

I have no problem with a lengthy Senate trial, but I am not sure Biden would be part of that. However, I have no problem with a formal investigation of Biden and his son's employment in Ukraine, done through institutional channels instead of by the President's personal lawyer. Likewise regarding Biden and Crowdstrike. If AG Barr or Federal Attorney Durham have evidence regarding Ukraine germane to the Articles of Impeachment, which will presumably be passed by the House, then bring them in as witnesses for the President as well. Or, if the President desires to personally testify, that should be his prerogative. What I dislike is this constant blurring of the lines between the President as a private individual and his duties and responsibilities as President.

 

Most constitutional scholars agree that "high crimes and misdemeanors" cover political crimes against the State, which do not necessarily have to be violations of statute law...i.e. they are whatever the House defines them as. Whether or not they are evidence of the President's guilt is determined by the Senate trial.
Remember...elections have consequences. The Constitution requires Articles of Impeachment to be passed only by a simple majority of the House. Then it goes for trial in the Senate, where the bar for conviction is the much higher bar of two-thirds majority.
Oh yeah...and there is no appeal.

 

If you don't use to trial to demonstrate, on the record, that the impeachment charges are a sham then a quick acquittal will go down in history as a partisan free pass. There is never going to be a better opportunity to hold people accountable than with a trial.

 

Trump does.

 

If you think if there is a quick not guilty verdict means "that's the end of it," you've not been paying attention the past almost 3 years. You need a public forum to compel testimony and get to the bottom of this sort of chicanery.

 

The end of the attack on Trump.

Then Trump could file with SCOTUS arguing Democrats have abused their power of impeachment.

I hope he wages ****ing scorched Earth war on those mother******s.

 

I don't know how you can have an impeachment trial without bringing the Biden's into it. Isn't that the basis of the charge of abuse of power?

 

How do you know that?

 

You are right. The objective is the "truth" as best as we may define it and the determination of whether there have been violations of the Constitution or statute law enabled under it and, of course, by whom. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

I qualified the exclusion of Biden in my post...by stating both Biden and Crowdstrike could be brought into the trial based on the formal investigatory work of DoJ (the AG and Durham). I would exclude Giuliani, Igor and Liv, unless Republicans want to turn the "trial" into a circus.

 

show me specifically in the constitution where "high crimes" is defined.

 

We have an accord!

 

You are ignoring confirmation from a number of sources that absolutely DID know what Trump said.

For exampe, there is the overheard conversation between Sondland and Trump that was overheard by a witness (which is first person testimony) along with Sondland's testimony (which is first hand testimony).

The problem here is that the GOP have NO INTEREST AT ALL concerning the truth of what happened here.

 

Trump's acts took place after Biden was shown to be leading - not just in the primary, but in Fox polls of head to head competition with Trump.

There definitely was motivation for taking political action against Trump.

 

I believe Ivanka Trump, in one of her books, explained that "truth" was relative and that more important was the "perception" of truth by the people. The Trump's are basically hustlers...and have been going back about three generations...from the time the President's grandfather made a small fortune in Seattle and Alaskan houses of ill repute, hotels and bars. Apparently, he returned to Germany (from whence he'd fled earlier to avoid military service) to marry and resettle in his German hometown. Unfortunately, the Emperor of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, which at the time governed that area of Germany, had no amnesty program for draft dodgers, and forced him to leave the country...taking him back to NYC.
To create an illusion (or perception of truth) one needs to "set the stage," involving the cherry picking of facts (enough so that narrative seems plausible) and a degree of pure "entertainment" (such as being naughty by cursing at political opponents at rallies...hehehe, isn't he nasty?). Shutting off honest debate by either changing the subject or talking over the opponent, etc., etc., all of which is Trump at his best (or worst).
What frustrates him and has driven him to do away with press conferences and the downplay of spokespeople is that he finds it virtually impossible, in a free press environment, to "play the role of the entertainer," because he's constantly being questioned about the "reality" of the play, based on phony props. This is why he seems to be attracted to "entertainment," wherein the audience is interested in the play itself, whether or not it is connected to reality (professional wrestling, beauty contests, casinos, etc.). And, he's found a political base that treats "politics" similarly...as entertainment.