McConnell lays out rules for Trump's Senate trial, allowing for vote on witnesses, documents

The GAO just released a report last week that said Trump violated the law here.

And the absolute fact is that the House is currently in the Court System challenging, and defeating, the exact same legal authority that Trump used to prevent all of these witnesses from testifying. And yet the Trump administration - the same ones currently demanding that the House go to the Court system - is explicitly telling the Court system that the Federal Courts can never intervene.

 

All of the "limitations" that you cite relate to the Whistleblower, at least in regards to the questions, and the Republican attempts to oust and identify the WB to spite whistleblower protections.

In regards to the witnesses, the only denials (besides the WB), were because they were requests for witnesses wholly irrelevant to Trump's conduct.

 

Since you seem unwilling or unable or unable to cite a specific incident I'll have to surmise what you are referring to.

There were 8 rejected, 6 would be acceptable in an investigation of the Bidens but that wasn't the scope of the investigation here. In an investigation of a bank robbery trial you don't interview people allegedly involved in the robbery at the 7-11 the next town over because the only relationship to each other was they were both robberies. The other two witnesses rejected were the whistle blower and Rep Schiff. First of all, the whistle blower's testimony would be worthless as it would be entirely hearsay. We heard that mantra over and over at the beginning by the Republicans that hearings can't be held on hearsay. Using the bank robbery analogy again. An anonymous tipster tells the police that the first bank of Kalamazoo is going to be robbed at 2pm Thursday. The FBI stakes out the bank and the robbers make their attempt only to be foiled. During their trials they claim that without the testimony of the tipster they can't have a fair trial. After the judge wipes the tears from his eyes he'll ask their attorney if he'd like to withdraw that request or shall they go directly to his disbarment for incompetence. The whistle blower is not the accuser, the many other actual witnesses are. As to Schiff, the republicans said they want to know how much he worked with the whistle blower prior to the hearings. This is an obvious attempt to expose the whistle blower and nothing else. That is against federal law. Whistle blowers just point the authorities at the evidence, it's up to them to gather it.

Schiff denied questions about the whistle blower's identity and told witnesses not to answer them. That is required to remain in compliance with federal law. All other questions were allowed.
Schiff "constantly interfered" is, I'm guessing since you didn't give a specific, the instance where a Congresswoman tried repeatedly to ask questions when it wasn't her turn. Rules like that are to maintain a semblance of order. Both sides had to adhere to those rules and had during previous testimony adhered to those rules that were originally written by Republicans for the Benghazi hearings. When her turn finally arrived she spent nearly her entire time, uninterrupted, giving a speech. It seems all those pressing questions were forgotten. It was theater pure and simple by the Republicans so they could cry about the abuse. They were like the little girl who throws a tantrum because she needs new clothes because all hers are torn while she is tearing them up.

And speaking of theater, in anticipation of you bringing this up, how about the storming of the secure chambers in violation of so many laws? Sure they were denied entrance as was everyone else not on the committee except the head of the judiciary committee who would likely be receiving orders to write impeachment articles. The Republicans knew they'd be denied entrance by the Sgt at Arms and they knew this would make great video and had alerted the press. There were literally dozens of Republican members of that committee representing them who were not detained and ironically some of those members were in the mob trying to force their way in. Can you imagine the Sgt at Arms having to keep a straight face during this dialog? "It's unfair! You can keep me out!" "It is not my intention to keep you out sir. Please check your electronic devices at the door and enter at your leisure." "This is an injustice!! It's an outrage! It's unfair!" "Sir you can enter anytime you please just as soon as you check your electronic devices. None have ever been allowed in this secure room."

 

No it is more Alex Jones junk.

 

Watch President Trump getting a free pass.

 

Nope.

 

What is obvious is that yesterday's pencil-neck's monologue was so pitiful and boring I had to open my windows after 15 minutes for fear of being gassed out.

 

How's that? Is he gonna be impeached again, censured, convicted, put in jail or not re-elected?

 

So, the House case against President Trump does not stand on its own merits and requires additional investigations?

I have this picture in my mind of the prosecutor bringing a case to judge - your Honor, here's the criminal and here's our case and we're looking for the evidence against him

 

Since the beginning of the trial, what has the Senate axed of the White House that they have not complied with?

Hm?

 

Obviously the senate gets an assist in this coverup. In fact I think the ads are already starting.

 

ROFL

More Schiff lies being parroted by his worshipers.

 

Calling additional witnesses? I couldn't agree more!

 

GOA also reported that the Obama administration broke the law on 7 different occasions, with the most egregious being the Bergdahl swap. Where was your anger and call for impeachment when the GOA reported the 7 times Obama broke the law?

 

Judge would have thrown out his testimony since it was in accurate.

Sure, where is the witnesses testimony from the House hearings of the person with first hand knowledge? They probably should present that evidence since your advocating they have it already, right? At least per Nadler who stated yesterday "Our evidence is damming".

 

My friend, obviously you got caught with your pants down. Obviously you stated that the White House is not complying with the trial and obviously that is not the case

 

Schiff: We run the House, we make the rules.
Also Schiff: We have no case, attack the rules the Senate laid out.

Schiff is a hypocrite and we all see through his failed coup attempt.

 

I am not angry or calling for Trump to be impeached because the GAO says he broke the law. I am angry and calling for Trump to be impeached because he abused the power of his office and obstructed congress.

The fact that he also broke the law while doing so is a bonus.

 

No, he would not. This is covered by the rule regarding Opinion Testimony from a Lay Witness. And his opinion is permissible so long as it is rationally based on his perception (check), helpful to the trier of fact (check), and not based on a scientific or technical rationale (check).

All of the witnesses presented first hand evidence. You appear to define "first hand testimony" as "directly quoting Donald Trump," and that is overly limited.

 

As you know they also said Obama violated it 7 times, Bush and Clinton as well. Nobody cares what the GAO's opinion is, both left or right, based on the history of their opinions.

 

Trump does not face removal because the GAO said he broke the law. He faces removal because he abused the power of his office and obstructed congress.

The fact that he also violated the law is a bonus.

 

I guess somewhere in the solemn walk to the Senate, they lost all that overwhelming, irrefutable evidence.