It appears that the separation of powers have been destroyed during these impeachment proceedings for President Trump. That is in violation of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers did not intend for the Senate to be a cheerleader for a President who was under scrutiny for wrongdoing. But, that is exactly what happened in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump. The Senate had no intention of calling the witnesses the Democrats wanted. They were not interested in what was best for the country---only in what was best for Donald J. Trump. What do you folks think?
Excuse me the separation of powers were maintained and not destroyed for future Presidents. The Democrats presented their witness testimony 192 times along with 28,000 documents in support of it. The unfair and impartiality started in the House.
The Senate adhered to the INTENT of the Constitution whereas the House leftists did not. The Constitution won . . . this time.
Yes, I'm sure they can in certain cases. But, they didn't abuse their power in the Trump impeachment proceedings.
They presented testimony as to whether Trump should be tried in the Senate, but no testimony as to whether he should be removed. It is possible they may actually be about to say that testimony already achieved was enough to remove him, as it would be for anyone with regular and unimpaired cognitive ability, but both I and every other person who has dealt with the TrumpHiveMindtm knows that is not the case, rather it is obvious that the House Republicans have decided that we no longer have a constitution but just a President. I don't really know what all the fuss is about. We should have let Trumps's Toadies know that if they were so afraid of their base that they would let their Constitutional duty go then we would vote them out in the General. Pity, some of them might have survived the coming Deluge. Oh, well, now they will ALL be gone in 2020. GRTBR I guess. And please observe the next few posts where all the Trumpers will pile on to tell me that Trump will win by a landslide. What's that I hear....whistling in the dark? Sounds good to me somehow.
They presented their evidence in the impeachment and in the Senate trial. 192 video clips of witness testimony and 28,000 documents to support it. If they they didn't have enough evidence to convict then they didn't have enough to impeach him to begin with your bromides and platitudes notwithstanding. Did this move any independents or moderates to the Dems, I doubt it.
The house Impeachment hearings were horrendously unfair. The Senate trial has been very fair. The White House proved beyond any reasonable persons doubt that. 1. House democrats lied about witness testimpny to the American people. 2. The House Democrats have absolutely no case against the president. If you disagree you are by definition unreasonable.
I think that your poll question is entirely reliant on personal opinion. Those that hate Trump will say no. Those that like Trump will say yes. But then what do you expect from a political process?
The Constitution lost. The Senate adhered to the wishes of Donald J. Trump---Mitch McConnell is his lap dog.
I am sure a little search on "impeachment witness" will give you a list. They showed 192 video clips of witness testimony from 13 witnesses, are you denying that?
The prosecution had every legal opportunity to prepare its case, gathering any information from any witness it desired. It failed to do so, either because they are retards or because they believe you're a retard.
Are you referring to the witnesses who testified in the House hearing? I wasn't referring to them. I meant there were no witnesses called during the Senate trial. The Republicans in the Senate blocked that.
The Constitution won. Democrats desire to call extra witnesses in the Senate rather than the House would have denied the President's access to the courts by having Senators voting on Executive Privilege instead of the courts. It was a short-cut tactic which failed. Now that investigation is back in the House, Schiff is saying he's not sure if he'll call for Bolton's testimony. Democrats really don't want the courts involved in their take-down. Bad precedent.
Their testimony as "witnesses" was played at trial. Same as with the Clinton impeachment where only 3 witnesses were heard from ALL clips from taped depositions. So stop with the there were no witnesses canard.
Exactly. Democrats fought hard against witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial and the witness testimony which was allowed had all been previously deposed before the Senate trial. Democrats are acting like the Republican Senate is doing something novel. It's not true.
