U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial

[Ricohoc]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

. . .

 

So feel free to retract your previous assertion if you like.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/09/senate-has-conducted-15-impeachment-trials-it-heard-witnesses-every-one/

 

 

Nope.

 

This is about presidential impeachments, and my reference was to presidential impeachments.  Additionally, my comment was NOT limited to House witnesses, but to all witnesses who had previously testified in matters relative to the presidential impeachment.  Please read it again. 

 

The Clinton impeachment trial in the Senate included witnesses from the grand jury (as I referenced previously) conducted by Ken Starr, which returned 11 -- ELEVEN -- criminal charges.  Ken Starr held a position similar to Mueller, not the same, but similar.  All of those witnesses had given testimony previously in the case brought against Clinton.

 

Precedent in presidential impeachments. 

 

[Sujo]

Note those investigations were not done by the house and witnesses where compelled to testify.

 

Whereas is this the house did the investigation and witnesses refused. The witnesses for trump, bolton, mulvaney, pompeo refused. They are witnesses to help trump arent they.

[WalkingOrders]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

Why would Zelensky lie?  Really?  I've explained it repeatedly, in terms a child would understand. 

 

Once more, in the simplest possible terms:  Zelensky lied because Russia could destroy Ukraine if Ukraine didn't have the help of the US, and Trump would withhold this help if Zelensky told the truth.

 

I know you won't accept this, because it is not what Trump wants you to believe.  Zelensky must be telling the truth because what he says is what Trump wants you to believe, and Bolton must be lying because what he says is not what Trump wants you to believe.

 

That is true Trump Derangement Syndrome.  I bet you believed Trump when he said that the economic indicators that made Obama look good were fake, and you believed Trump when he said the same economic indicators are now real because they make him look good. 

In a general sense, in life, or in legal cases, there could be construed motives or reasons for telling a lie.

In the face of ANY accusation made on a schoolyard or anywhere, a gang or group who suspect someone could claim "I think he's lying" of the accused, or even of the witnesses. 

 

Yet such an accusation cannot stand on grounds of claims to read thoughts.

 

It goes against fundamentals of law, and indeed morality,  to accuse without proof that someone else is a liar.

 

An argument is being made that Zelensky was harmed by the Bully Donald Trump, while Zelensky himself says, he gets along well with Trump, and was never harmed.

 

Even his friend the Foreign minister says the same. They have a call record in front of witnesses. Both parties have met, and get along well. 

 

But Schiff thinks Zelensky is lying, in fact he claims to know he is lying.

 

An argument laid out that any child and all sensible adults can understand.

 

Another argument made is that a most obvious case of potential corruption, the Bidens/Burisma could never possibly even be questioned as corruption, because even to consider the idea is ludicrous on its face. This argument is made because it speaks direct to the President of the United States motivation. As if the POTUS is somehow commiting an evil for even questioning the possibility of corruption here. This regarding a case that requires an extreme stretch away from reason if one is NOT to see a potential for corruption. 

 

And again we have an argument that henges on what is in the thoughts of someone, and the argument must presume thoughts that go against what has been publicly stated to succeed. Again, presumed thoughts do not make a case.

[Jingthing]

48 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Nope.

 

This is about presidential impeachments, and my reference was to presidential impeachments.  Additionally, my comment was NOT limited to House witnesses, but to all witnesses who had previously testified in matters relative to the presidential impeachment.  Please read it again. 

 

The Clinton impeachment trial in the Senate included witnesses from the grand jury (as I referenced previously) conducted by Ken Starr, which returned 11 -- ELEVEN -- criminal charges.  Ken Starr held a position similar to Mueller, not the same, but similar.  All of those witnesses had given testimony previously in the case brought against Clinton.

 

Precedent in presidential impeachments. 

The bulk of Impeachment trial precedent is not presidential because that is so rare. 

Why not hear Bolton?!? 

[WalkingOrders]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The bulk of Impeachment trial precedent is not presidential because that is so rare. 

Why not hear Bolton?!? 

Because the Democrat impeachment managers CHOSE not to contest Executive privilege as it pertains to this witness and a subpoena in the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

Without doing so, they pushed their case to the Senate.

 

They failed to make the case they wanted, on the hope they could get away with precisely what they now arguing, that they should be allowed to bypass the Supreme  Court.

[Ricohoc]

18 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Because the Democrat impeachment managers CHOSE not to contest Executive privilege as it pertains to this witness and a subpoena in the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

Without doing so, they pushed their case to the Senate.

 

They failed to make the case they wanted, on the hope they could get away with precisely what they now arguing, that they should be allowed to bypass the Supreme  Court.

Like I've said before: Democrats ignoring precedent (and even ignoring the separation of powers outlined in the US Constitution) that doesn't coincide with their goals.

 

For Democrats, it was all about timing -- getting it done before the election year 2020 in the hopes of not looking like they were affecting the 2020 election.  It wasn't about being thorough or complete and fashioning a rock-solid case. 

[WalkingOrders]

Rep Jason Crow (D) Mgr, should be careful at attempting to make arguments that hinge on word play. That wont play well with Senators, most of whom are Attorneys.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Like I've said before: Democrats ignoring precedent (and even ignoring the separation of powers outlined in the US Constitution) that doesn't coincide with their goals.

 

For Democrats, it was all about timing -- getting it done before the election year 2020 in the hopes of not looking like they were affecting the 2020 election.  It wasn't about being thorough or complete and fashioning a rock-solid case. 

Ignoring the constitution?

 

The constitution gives the house sole and full determination on how to do it. Not the courts. Funny how the doj are actually in court arguing the court has no jurisdiction on house subpoenas, yet at impeachment the whitehouse is arguing it does.

 

Without witnesses it is not a trial, its a debate.

[mogandave]

12 hours ago, candide said:

Same type of link I provided before to you....

“The president has not spoken with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said immediately after the transcript's release. “The president has not asked the attorney general to contact Ukraine — on this or any other matter. The attorney general has not communicated with Ukraine — on this or any other subject. Nor has the attorney general discussed this matter, or anything relating to Ukraine, with Rudy Giuliani.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/news-to-us-doj-distances-itself-from-mulvaney-claim-that-ukraine-aid-was-tied-to-investigation

Actually, even Trump stated it. I am surprised you were not aware of it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-justice/trump-says-he-has-not-asked-doj-to-investigate-bidens-son-idUSKBN1WQ2OV

 

But I have no doubt you will reply in a few days or weeks with exactly the same question.

 

So no, you don’t have an official statement about whether or not Joe (or any of the five Biden’s that have gotten rich as a result of his being in office) are being investigated. 
 

That’s what I thought, thanks. 
 

Incidentally I heard a clip of Joe telling another lie about the Senate hearings yesterday. I wonder if any of the “journalists” in the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party will call him out on it. Another proven liar and cheater that gets a pass.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/29/2020 at 5:09 PM, WalkingOrders said:

Are you disputing ANY of her argument before the United States Senate in this impeachment trial? NO you are not. You are here to attack her character as if she were a witness, which she isn't. If you can't take on her argument just hit the road jack. The topic here is impeachment and its getting old the constant deflection. Hunter Biden remember the name!

When one can't attack the message attack the messenger.

[thaibeachlovers]

38 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Ignoring the constitution?

 

The constitution gives the house sole and full determination on how to do it. Not the courts. Funny how the doj are actually in court arguing the court has no jurisdiction on house subpoenas, yet at impeachment the whitehouse is arguing it does.

 

Without witnesses it is not a trial, its a debate.

and let's remember the the senate has sole and full determination as to how to run the "trial". So witnesses or not is not up to the house.

[WalkingOrders]

43 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Ignoring the constitution?

 

The constitution gives the house sole and full determination on how to do it. Not the courts. Funny how the doj are actually in court arguing the court has no jurisdiction on house subpoenas, yet at impeachment the whitehouse is arguing it does.

 

Without witnesses it is not a trial, its a debate.

The poster here indicated insufficient knowledge of the US Government to fully take part in the discussion adequately. No branch of the US Government has total power over another. The President has the right to argue House Subpoenas before the Judicial branch, applies to Senate subpoenas as well.

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by WalkingOrders
Add senate

[thaibeachlovers]

48 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Like I've said before: Democrats ignoring precedent (and even ignoring the separation of powers outlined in the US Constitution) that doesn't coincide with their goals.

 

For Democrats, it was all about timing -- getting it done before the election year 2020 in the hopes of not looking like they were affecting the 2020 election.  It wasn't about being thorough or complete and fashioning a rock-solid case. 

I just heard one of the defence lawyers pointing out precisely that. The Dems rushed their investigation. Strange then that they sat on it so long before sending the articles to the senate.

[WalkingOrders]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I just heard one of the defence lawyers pointing out precisely that. The Dems rushed their investigation. Strange then that they sat on it so long before sending the articles to the senate.

This Game, of rushing the impeachment at lightspeed, refusing to contest Presidential refusals to comply in the Court, then attempting to bypass the supreme court intirely in the Senate, has been their dirty game from the start.

[Eric Loh]

What a take down of the Reps assertion that Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine by House manager Hakeem (D). 
 

Summarizing his amazing retort to a question that Trump was a corruption crusader, he dismantle this foolish assertion by by stating that Ukraine corruption was well known by Transparency International and USAID since Trump became POTUS. Question is why Trump didn’t do anything or stop aid in 2017 and 2018 and instead continued giving as much as 500B and 600B aids respectively to Ukraine. Then when Biden announced his candidacy, Trump stop aid and demanded Zelensky investigation announcement. Clear as day that Trump was targeting Biden and trying to smear him for his electability chances. 

[Sujo]

35 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

The poster here indicated insufficient knowledge of the US Government to fully take part in the discussion adequately. No branch of the US Government has total power over another. The President has the right to argue House Subpoenas before the Judicial branch, applies to Senate subpoenas as well.

 

Better tell the doj then. They are arguing in court right now that the court has no jurisdiction to make a ruling on house subpoenas.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

In a general sense, in life, or in legal cases, there could be construed motives or reasons for telling a lie.

In the face of ANY accusation made on a schoolyard or anywhere, a gang or group who suspect someone could claim "I think he's lying" of the accused, or even of the witnesses. 

 

Yet such an accusation cannot stand on grounds of claims to read thoughts.

 

It goes against fundamentals of law, and indeed morality,  to accuse without proof that someone else is a liar.

 

An argument is being made that Zelensky was harmed by the Bully Donald Trump, while Zelensky himself says, he gets along well with Trump, and was never harmed.

 

Even his friend the Foreign minister says the same. They have a call record in front of witnesses. Both parties have met, and get along well. 

 

But Schiff thinks Zelensky is lying, in fact he claims to know he is lying.

 

An argument laid out that any child and all sensible adults can understand.

 

Another argument made is that a most obvious case of potential corruption, the Bidens/Burisma could never possibly even be questioned as corruption, because even to consider the idea is ludicrous on its face. This argument is made because it speaks direct to the President of the United States motivation. As if the POTUS is somehow commiting an evil for even questioning the possibility of corruption here. This regarding a case that requires an extreme stretch away from reason if one is NOT to see a potential for corruption. 

 

And again we have an argument that henges on what is in the thoughts of someone, and the argument must presume thoughts that go against what has been publicly stated to succeed. Again, presumed thoughts do not make a case.

Clearly you would watch a person reading a prepared statement at gunpoint and insist the person was speaking sincerely.  In your mind being at gunpoint can't possibly influence what the person says.

 

It's worth noting that even if the Ukraine officials were unaware they were being pressured (extremely unlikely), testimony from US officials under oath make it clear that Trump's intent was to pressure Zelensky into a public announce of BS investigations.  That is clearly abuse of power.

 

If you insist investigations should be started based solely on appearances, there are lots of investigations of Trump and family that are past due.

[WalkingOrders]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Better tell the doj then. They are arguing in court right now that the court has no jurisdiction to make a ruling on house subpoenas.

If that were the case, they would be incorrect, but in all of these stories, specifics are left out, namely that they are arguing a specific facts, in a specific case. A case probably with many pages of argument and facts, that I am unaware of, and not likely to go and read, just like the rest of the American public. Exactly what democrats count on. If its not part of the case file of evidence on this impeachment, which issued subpoenas before even holding a house vote...I have no time.

[Ricohoc]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

Ignoring the constitution?

 

The constitution gives the house sole and full determination on how to do it. Not the courts. Funny how the doj are actually in court arguing the court has no jurisdiction on house subpoenas, yet at impeachment the whitehouse is arguing it does.

 

Without witnesses it is not a trial, its a debate.

I've stated previously, and there is ample information online to support it: In order for House subpoenas to carry any legal weight, there must be a full vote of the House to begin their inquiries.  A unilateral announcement -- as done by Nancy -- is what converted subpoenas to nothing more than request letters. 

 

THAT is why there was no legal oversight to be made by the courts because the courts already ruled previously on a full House vote being required.

 

The trial in the Senate is not court.  The evidence is provided by the House.  If they fail to provide the evidence -- or do things improperly in order to provide a great case -- it's not the role of the Senate to do their work.

 

 

[WalkingOrders]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Clearly you would watch a person reading a prepared statement at gunpoint and insist the person was speaking sincerely.  In your mind being at gunpoint can't possibly influence what the person says.

 

It's worth noting that even if the Ukraine officials were unaware they were being pressured (extremely unlikely), testimony from US officials under oath make it clear that Trump's intent was to pressure Zelensky into a public announce of BS investigations.  That is clearly abuse of power.

 

If you insist investigations should be started based solely on appearances, there are lots of investigations of Trump and family that are past due.

Gunpoint? We know you mean this figuratively, not literally. How do you know this figurative telling?

 

Tell me again your assumption gathered from assuming the required mind reading effort. A mind reading which requires the asumption to be accepted by those of us who simply claim we are not mind readers.

 

And as we simply do not allow ourselves to fall for an assumption that depends on mind reading you then chastize us all for dishonesty. The truth is that the entire set of facts against the POTUS falls to pieces unless your mind reading trick is accepted as fact. 

 

Why would you expect people to read the mind of Zelensky. I can guess, but I can't read your mind.

[WalkingOrders]

Elizabeth Warren is going to be casting an impeachment vote. She is a United States senator, also running for President who recently said she will allow a 9 year old so called transgendered child, what used to be called gender disphoria, to do the vetting for who will be her choice for the Secetary of Education. On video.

 

This Impeachment is about far more then Donald Trump its about Conservatives saving the Nation. I am Confident they will. Followed by re-election, followed by Durham, followed by the end of the Democrat party as we know it, and I read the IG, the IG on FISA, the Mueller report. All are nails in Democrat coffin, as will be this Impeachment result will be. 

 

God Bless The USA

Edited January 31, 2020 by WalkingOrders
Para

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

I've stated previously, and there is ample information online to support it: In order for House subpoenas to carry any legal weight, there must be a full vote of the House to begin their inquiries.  A unilateral announcement -- as done by Nancy -- is what converted subpoenas to nothing more than request letters. 

 

THAT is why there was no legal oversight to be made by the courts because the courts already ruled previously on a full House vote being required.

 

The trial in the Senate is not court.  The evidence is provided by the House.  If they fail to provide the evidence -- or do things improperly in order to provide a great case -- it's not the role of the Senate to do their work.

 

 

I can see it now though. They spent the last 3 years trying to find a crime to fit the man, and when that failed they came up with a brilliant wheeze- impeach him knowing it would fail in the senate and spend the next year till the election telling us that the outcome was because the GOP senators are all unconstitutional crooks that didn't allow witnesses.

It doesn't matter whether he did or didn't do something impeachable, or that an acquittal is  virtually inevitable, the Dems will cry about it till November thinking it might sway some voters, and then for the next 4 years after he is re elected.

 

IN MY OPINION.

Edited January 31, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[Sujo]

18 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

I've stated previously, and there is ample information online to support it: In order for House subpoenas to carry any legal weight, there must be a full vote of the House to begin their inquiries.  A unilateral announcement -- as done by Nancy -- is what converted subpoenas to nothing more than request letters. 

 

THAT is why there was no legal oversight to be made by the courts because the courts already ruled previously on a full House vote being required.

 

The trial in the Senate is not court.  The evidence is provided by the House.  If they fail to provide the evidence -- or do things improperly in order to provide a great case -- it's not the role of the Senate to do their work.

 

 

There is no trial. No witnesses or docs is not a trial, never has been.

 

its nice how trump supporters are only arguing process, nothing said about what he did.

[Ricohoc]

And then we have this report by Politico just a few hours old.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/joe-biden-impeachment-witness-109730

 

Yet another Biden Rule that comes back to bite Democrats -- kinda like his other "Biden Rule" where a POTUS shouldn't be able to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year.

 

In THE LATEST Biden Rule, he claims in his memo to fellow Dems that there doesn't need to be witnesses or a trial.

 

Democrats are the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Ricohoc

[WalkingOrders]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There is no trial. No witnesses or docs is not a trial, never has been.

 

its nice how trump supporters are only arguing process, nothing said about what he did.

Well hopefully the Senate will vote to REJECT the Impeachment articles tomorrow.

Edited January 31, 2020 by WalkingOrders
Sp

[Sujo]

31 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

If that were the case, they would be incorrect, but in all of these stories, specifics are left out, namely that they are arguing a specific facts, in a specific case. A case probably with many pages of argument and facts, that I am unaware of, and not likely to go and read, just like the rest of the American public. Exactly what democrats count on. If its not part of the case file of evidence on this impeachment, which issued subpoenas before even holding a house vote...I have no time.

must be nice to give your opinion on an issue you dont know about and dont want to know about.

 

The house has sole conduct of its investigation in any way it wants. According to the constitution.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Ricohoc said:

And then we have this report by Politico just a few hours old.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/joe-biden-impeachment-witness-109730

 

Yet another Biden Rule that comes back to bite Democrats -- kinda like his other "Biden Rule" where a POTUS shouldn't be able to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year.

 

In THE LATEST Biden Rule, he claims in his memo to fellow Dems.  He basically says that there doesn't need to be witnesses or a trial.

 

Democrats are the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences.

Top marks for irrelevancy. There has never been a trial with no witnesses or documents. It simply is a debate.

[Ricohoc]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Top marks for irrelevancy. There has never been a trial with no witnesses or documents. It simply is a debate.

Evidence gathered by the House was presented in the Senate.  THAT evidence included witness statements and documents that the House gathered.  That is the relevancy of a Senate impeachment trial.

 

You don't like it, but that's how it goes.

 

I predict that precedent will be maintained in president impeachment trials in the Senate and that no NEW witnesses or NEW documents will be called.  Acquittal coming soon.

[Sujo]

15 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Elizabeth Warren is going to be casting an impeachment vote. She is a United States senator, also running for President who recently said she will allow a 9 year old so called transgendered child, what used to be called gender disphoria, to do the vetting for who will be her choice for the Secetary of Education. On video.

 

This Impeachment is about far more then Donald Trump its about Conservatives saving the Nation. I am Confident they will. Followed by re-election, followed by Durham, followed by the end of the Democrat party as we know it, and I read the IG, the IG on FISA, the Mueller report. All are nails in Democrat coffin, as will be this Impeachment result will be. 

 

God Bless The USA

More irrelevant distraction. Do try to stick with the subject.

 

Here is some short reading on the doj arguing the courts cannot rule on subpoena.

 

Saying impeachment is the option. Well yes, but not according to repubs.

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480730-doj-tells-court-that-congress-cant-sue-to-enforce-subpoenas

[WalkingOrders]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

must be nice to give your opinion on an issue you dont know about and dont want to know about.

 

The house has sole conduct of its investigation in any way it wants. According to the constitution.

As has been argued to the point of beating a dead horse, the Impeachment Article does not allow the House to kick the bill of rights to the curb.