GOP should allow more witnesses!!!

If there is a real crime involving Hunter Biden and Ukraine, or Joe Biden and Burisma, why hasn't the Senate launched an investigation into this?

The Republicans have controlled the Senate since 2011. Why haven't they investigated the Bidens???

hmmm???

maybe cause there's nothing there to investigate.

 

.

 

And you were there, so why not be a "witness"?

If what you say is true, you will have no problem documenting it- not by assumptions, but by verifiable facts. The left seems to think they can make assumptions and that is close enough to evidence to be evidence. Except of course when it applies to democrats. We didn't use assumptions to figure out Biden did exactly what the left would like to say Trump did. He bragged about it, actually completed the act, and- nobody on the left raised an eyebrow.

Explain how the rules you worship when you think they can be used to harm Trump have no weight at all when they apply to democrats. That hogwash has been the sum of the character of the left for years now, and that adds up to not having any character at all.

Only the left thinks the president should be their puppet, always obedient to their whims and imagination, and should not be allowed to lead without their personal control and approval, and failing to comply, he must be criminalized.

In my mind, that kind of objective is somewhat equivalent to treason- and to say the least, it is highly offensive.

 

No one is scared of anything. House Democrats called 18 witnesses, hid the testimony of the ICIG because they are scared his testimony blows the lid off their fallacious claims. Schiff allowed ZERO defense witnesses. What was he scared of? Bolton went to the court to allow a judge to decide whether he should comply with the subpoena or respect that the White House keep discussions with the President confidential. Pelosi dropped the subpoena on Bolton and his underling.

So, now we have watched endless days of a Kangaroo Court in operation and the witch hunters want to call Captain Kangaroo, who was paid millions in advances to publish lies about his confidential activities in the White House ,,, when we already know the charges against Trump are not impeachable regardless of any additional testimony.

 

The real objective, the one they think they have a chance to accomplish, is to keep this dog and pony show going until November in the hopes of preventing Trump's re-election. It's not a battle over any impeachable offense; impeachment was being planned even before the inauguration as a way to overturn the 2016 election. It has nothing to do with serving the public benefit, nothing to do with justice- just the opposite. It has everything to do with protecting the status quo, the shadow brotherhood of congressional and bureaucratic power that enriches the people in it at the expense of all of us. It's driven by the fear of losing that enrichment and power- and actually having to do the job they were elected to do... serve the best interests of the American people above their own.

 

FALSE!!!!

George Kent, John Eisenberg, Michael Duffey, Ulrich Brechbuhl, Russell Vought, John Bolton ALL refused to comply with the subpoena, due to White House pressure.

The Republicans had several witnesses testify.

get your facts straight!!!!

 

nobody on the Right cared either, hence ZERO Senate investigations.

 

They are aghast that Trump is returning the judiciary to one that defends liberty. They want to keep the Senate from getting back to the business of the country as long as they can. As true fascists, they don't want us to benefit from our votes in 2016 and want to steal the 2020 election.

 

FALSE. Bolton went to court to ask the judge what to do about competing demands between executive privilege and Congressional subpoenas. Pelosi dropped the Bolton subpoena rather than fight in court. When there are conflicts between the other two branches, it is the judiciary that settles them. Pelosi chose not to fight, claiming she had enough evidence to convict. Her articles don't allege impeachable acts. It should be end of story.

 

I think it is a partisan showcase. Time to end it. The more we allow it to continue, the more likely it will be repeated with future Presidents.

 

They didn't want to be challenged.

 

You should have compelled witnesses.
Your boys ****ed up.
Deal with the ineptitude of your boys in the house.

 

To what end? Charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are opinions, not crimes or impeachable offenses. Almost every President, from Washington thru Obama were accused of abuse of power for simply exercising power in a way disagreeable to their political adversaries. Why tie up the Senate arguing the merits of vague charges in what is essentially a left wing political ad. It is an exercise in futility. If you don't like the way a President operates, don't vote for him. And yes, I watched and listened to Professor Dershowitz's address to the Senate.

 

The GAO doesn't judge law

 

So you admit that the House vote to impeach is a box wrapped in glorious wonder and filled with nothing?

 

Within the impoundment control act, which many scholars believe to be unconstutional, is the remedy, a civil law suit by the comptroller general. i.e. it is a civil not a criminal violation and therefore not an impeachable offense.

 

In the Obama administration. Fact is there was an internal investigation by Obama's people- and they elected to keep it under the rug. There is documentation of that, and a Ukraine official willing to testify to it.

 

Did you read my post - or do you just have a desire to say silly things ?

 

We wouldnt be in this mess if Trump just let the House call witnesses from the White House.

Then there would be NO need for witnesses in the Senate trial.

 

So you want to impeach Trump with one set of evidence, then have the Senate vote to remove him from office on a different set of evidence?

Besides, you want evidence to what? So far all that has been presented as "evidence" has been personal opinion and speculation. So you want more opinion witnesses?

 

Wouldn't it have been nice for the Democrats to provide evidence to support their speculative opinions?

Why would the President need to cross examine or challenge evidence when their wasn't any evidence presented in the first place?

 

Because they knew they would have lost.

But isn't it telling of the Democrat's dishonesty, when they demand the Senate must call the very witnesses the House refused to call?

 

The Democrats want the witnesses that Trump refused to allow in the House hearings.

 

Wrong.

The aid was held up to force Ukraine to agree to investigate Biden and the DNC server. This is not in dispute. Not even Trump denies this.

 

Even the supreme Court agreed that Obama violated the Constitution with his illegal recess appointments, and a federal court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution by using his pen and phone to appropriate money to support the ACA Section 1402 subsidies to private health insurance companies.

And yet, he was not impeached. Since trump is being impeached for not violating any laws, I am positive if Trump had violated the Constitution and made illegal recess appointments while the Democrats held the Senate, he'd have been impeached for it.