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

You may be right about that factoid but I'm not sure if that applies to a motion to dismiss. Either way, Trump will be acquitted. It takes 2/3's of the senate to remove him. That would mean 66 senators by my count.

 

...yea, that's a wierd interpretation based on a strawman.

No one alleged that the QPQ was to cooperate with the DOJ. There was no investigation by the DOJ. There was an investigation by Giuliani, but cooperation with the investigation was never the goal.

Trump wanted an announcement of an investigation by Ukraine.

 

Still true on a motion to dismiss. The VP has an unavoidable conflict on the outcome of the impeachment given that he becomes President after a removal.

But you are almost certainly correct about the lack of removal. My lone point there is to note that Republicans took a very long time to turn on Nixon.

 

Not an abuse of the law to impeach trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

 

I did not make the claim you attributed to me in that post, but I think you accidentally edited the quote.

 

Nah any billionaire president who hides his taxes and who’s lawyer says he lied in bank docs, will do.

 

The Justice Dept and the FBI do not need the President's help to figure out who they should investigate and who they should not. They have their own process and guidelines to decide that. They are not supposed to be taking orders from the President on these sorts of issues, anymore than the IRS needs the President to tell them who to audit. They sure do not need Donald Trump to tell them how to go about it or who to ask for help. IF the evidence of a crime is overseas, believe it or not, they still do not consult the President for his personal 'help'. There is a process by which they can request the aid of virtually any law enforcement entity overseas and they can even request the help of the Attorney General or the state department. It is amazing how many cases get investigated, and tried to conviction, without 'Mr.. President' doing anything at all.

As for the rest, I just do not have the time take you through the entire case. It would not do any good anyway

 

yes.

 

Maybe. But to chicken to ask for Mulvaney or Bolton. A court would have to order them to testify.
Everyone who was in the call has been banned from testifying by tRUMP.
But many many who are aware of what happened in the call have stated basically, tRUMP was using extortion for personal gains.

 

Where the heck did you ever come up with D's as the righteous party? They are the party more towards equal opportunity/protections for all types of people, but righteousness stems from the R party and their claim to be more religious.

The most religious folks in America are RW and solid in 3X married, sleeping with a prostitute while wife 3 is ready to give birth to his son, bragger about grabbing women's crotches. That is the party of righteousness, or was.
They scream about abortions, they rail against gay marriage, they foam about transgenders. That is the righteous party.

 

Yep. Just like the Clinton acquittal.

 

So you're saying inner city fatherless children are the prodigies of Republicans? I think you have strayed off the reservation man! Try and reign that nonsense in, it's not even remotely believable, I bet even a baby momma would laugh at this

 

No.
What reservation.
Yes it is. R's have always claimed righteousness in recent decades. That's why the got a group penned the religious right.
You are laughing?

 

Dude, you really think religious people are all Republicans.. And all religious people think they're righteous.. You do realize that vanity is a sin, so in your quest to look in the know you offer contradiction to righteousness.. As for promiscuity, again you point the finger at Religious and ignore the facts about the real numbers of, and the folks that procreate with several different mates and then leave their bastards for you and I to raise..
You really should attempt an honest and fair view of the world around you..

 

To determine how big a crook trump is, of course. That’s how they finally got Al Capone.

 

There is nothing legal (in nature, not act) about Impeachment. Impeachment/Senate Trial is the equivalent of a corporate officer being called before the BoD to answer charges of corruption/incompetence/criminality and either leaving with or without a job. Aside from having his status as POTUS revoked a hypothetical conviction has no legal consequence nor can it be used as proof of guilt in any actual legal proceedings that may come after.

 

Set up ?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/09/ig-report-continued-specific-fisa-date-redactions/

 

Wrong!

The Senate dismissing the Articles does not make them disappear.

It just makes the Senate look like partisan lackeys of your BLOTUS!

And their votes to dismiss will STILL count AGAINST them in 2020.

 

That would a seriously DUMB move since the GOP cannot control what the Dems will say about your BLOTUS.

 

Therein lies the Catch-22 which explains WHY the GOP will NOT subpoena witness testimony for the Senate trial. If the Whitehouse obstructs and refuses to allow those witnesses to testify then that proves that the 2nd Article regarding Obstruction of Congress has sufficient merit to remove the BLOTUS.

If they don't call the Whitehouse witnesses there is no one who can testify in defense of the BLOTUS. If he does allow them to testify then they risk perjuring themselves if they don't tell the truth.

Moscow Mitch is not going to allow any witness testimony IMO.

 

The Senate ACQUITTED Clinton on all charges!

 

What House rule was not followed?

 

Such Presidential directives to DOJ happen all the time.

A President might direct the DOJ focus on prosecuting illegal aliens or to ignore marijuana dealers.

 

More accurately, they will right a wrong.

 

Did the Senate right a wrong done to Clinton? Nah. The overwhelming weight of evidence was that Trump was proven as guilty as anyone ever could have been, yet the partisan Senate let him stay in Office. So, so wrong.