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

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Ricohoc said:

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.

Not trial then not acquitted.

In nixon and clInton the house didnt investigate. Different issues 

 

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

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.

Pathetic....

Even Graham says there is no investigation

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/lindsey-graham-wants-hunter-biden-investigatedjust-not-right-now

[WalkingOrders]

21 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Not trial then not acquitted.

In nixon and clInton the house didnt investigate. Different issues 

 

 

Here we go everyone ... the never ending semantics game we ALL have fortold. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

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.

You don't see Ukraine as being at gunpoint.  It is difficult to debate with someone who is uninformed and insists on staying that way.

[Sujo]

25 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Here we go everyone ... the never ending semantics game we ALL have fortold. 

No witnesses means no trial. 

[rabas]

18 minutes ago, Sujo said:

43 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Here we go everyone ... the never ending semantics game we ALL have fortold. 

No witnesses means no trial. 

and no trial means no guilt.

[Jingthing]

It's now looking clear that there will be no witnesses in the senate. The first time in any impeachment senate trial in American history. Of course after that, 45 will soon be technically acquitted. But exonerated? Absolutely not! American people other than the cult of personality followers understand the difference. 

 

Yes of course 45 will go on a victory bragging tour about how he was found innocent. But the only audience for that that will actually believe that are the already converted. 

 

This shameful behavior of republican senators will indeed be putting the senate in play. American's sense of fairness is being deeply violated with this sham trial. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Jingthing

[muzley]

 

 

[Sujo]

58 minutes ago, rabas said:

and no trial means no guilt.

Thats why no witnesses. So they can say no guilt. Doesnt mean hes not guilty. Just means they didnt want to know.

 

Perjured their oath.

[WalkingOrders]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

That is clearly abuse of power.

A vague claim that has been made by the opposition party about every President since the beginning of The USA. 

[WalkingOrders]

10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Thats why no witnesses. So they can say no guilt. Doesnt mean hes not guilty. Just means they didnt want to know.

 

Perjured their oath.

It means the Democrats failed.... again.

[WalkingOrders]

46 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's now looking clear that there will be no witnesses in the senate. The first time in any impeachment senate trial in American history. Of course after that, 45 will soon be technically acquitted. But exonerated? Absolutely not! American people other than the cult of personality followers understand the difference. 

 

Yes of course 45 will go on a victory bragging tour about how he was found innocent. But the only audience for that that will actually believe that are the already converted. 

 

This shameful behavior of republican senators will indeed be putting the senate in play. American's sense of fairness is being deeply violated with this sham trial. 

Winning! 

[WalkingOrders]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You don't see Ukraine as being at gunpoint.  It is difficult to debate with someone who is uninformed and insists on staying that way.

I am more informed then you will ever be, and I have forgotten more then you will ever know. And yeah , I see no imaginary gun, and I do not read minds. 

[WalkingOrders]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

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

I am not interested in any "short reading" nor am I impressed with anyone's ability to use google. I can pull up articles on the subject all day long.

 

That is NOT the same as me pulling up the Case itself, reading both sides of the argument, reading or reading a decision, and then bouncing against the applicable case law.

 

You see Google can't do that kind of work for me. Real research. And you have not done that, and neither have I, so drop the pretense man. Don't pretend you know something from your "short readings". 

[WalkingOrders]

This has always been nothing more then an extension of the attempted coup, and eventually how this all came about is going to be known. That means who the whistleblower is, his contacts to schiff/Staff, and Biden, etc. It will be after this impeachment mess is over. Probably when the whistleblower tries to work his own book deal.

[Ricohoc]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Here we go everyone ... the never ending semantics game we ALL have fortold. 

Nancy and Chuck are feeding that narrative.  Political.  Trying to make the Senate Republicans look bad for not doing the House Dems' work.

[Tippaporn]

I can't believe the Dems hypocritcal cries of "unfair" after their procedural travesty in the House.  What comes around goes around.  That's not to say the Senate procedures were unfair.  It regards only the Dems experience of winning to ultimately losing.  There's an old J. Geils song, "Serves You Right To Suffer."

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Eric Loh]

The Reps senators aren’t not fulfilling their part to have witnesses and documents even though the constitution clearly does not limit senate power to perform its own inquiry. Trump’s administration refused to cooperate with the House and the Reps led senate should now use its authority to compel appearances by current and former administration officials. No excuse as precedents have been set by previous senate house to call for witnesses in previous impeachment trial including those of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. In refusing new witnesses, the senate Reps are shirking their duty and aiding in a cover-up instigated by Trump. Sad and shameful. 

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The Reps senators aren’t not fulfilling their part to have witnesses and documents even though the constitution clearly does not limit senate power to perform its own inquiry. Trump’s administration refused to cooperate with the House and the Reps led senate should now use its authority to compel appearances by current and former administration officials. No excuse as precedents have been set by previous senate house to call for witnesses in previous impeachment trial including those of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. In refusing new witnesses, the senate Reps are shirking their duty and aiding in a cover-up instigated by Trump. Sad and shameful. 

The Republicans in the House claimed the same . . . that procedural precedents in past impeachments were tossed out the window.  Witnesses requested by the Republicans were denied.  None of that needed to happen.  It could have been fair.  Not only that, Nadler denied the Republicans a minority hearing to call their own witnesses, as per House rules.

 

How can you then cry about the Senate refusing to hear new witness and accuse the Republicans of "shirking their duty?"  Please tell me you do not see the hypocrisy?

[Eric Loh]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The Republicans in the House claimed the same . . . that procedural precedents in past impeachments were tossed out the window.  Witnesses requested by the Republicans were denied.  None of that needed to happen.  It could have been fair.  Not only that, Nadler denied the Republicans a minority hearing to call their own witnesses, as per House rules.

 

How can you then cry about the Senate refusing to hear new witness and accuse the Republicans of "shirking their duty?"  Please tell me you do not see the hypocrisy?

The hypocrisy is clear to me that the Reps senators stonewalled witnesses for the House trial while decrying lack of first hand information. Now when they have the chance to clear their doubts by calling those first hand witnesses, they shirk their duty. 
 

Hypocrisy is clear to me when in the past the Reps were parroting Trump’s narrative that there was no quid pro quo and now the whole defense team is changing the narrative that quid pro quo was not impeachable. 
 

The best bs from Alan Dershowitz that said ‘if a president does something by his behavior to help him get elected in the public interest , that can’t be the kind of quid pro quo that result in an impeachment’. He is now admitting quid pro quo took place. Just how hypocritical and low can the Reps get to defend a corrupt President. 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

The hypocrisy is clear to me that the Reps senators stonewalled witnesses for the House trial while decrying lack of first hand information. Now when they have the chance to clear their doubts by calling those first hand witnesses, they shirk their duty. 
 

Hypocrisy is clear to me when in the past the Reps were parroting Trump’s narrative that there was no quid pro quo and now the whole defense team is changing the narrative that quid pro quo was not impeachable. 
 

The best bs from Alan Dershowitz that said ‘if a president does something by his behavior to help him get elected in the public interest , that can’t be the kind of quid pro quo that result in an impeachment’. He is now admitting quid pro quo took place. Just how hypocritical and low can the Reps get to defend a corrupt President. 

You avoided answering my question.  But I'm not surprised.  An honest answer would require a painful (for some) shift in perception.

 

In any case, the Republicans weren't decrying the lack of witnesses with first hand knowledge.  They were decrying the fact that none of the Dem witnesses had first hand knowledge, with the exception of Vindman who was on the call and Sondland who spoke with the President.  And since none of the witnesses had first hand knowledge then all they could offer as testimony was their speculations, feelings, suppositions, assumptions, etc.  In other words, none of those witnesses knew anything with certainty.  Yet that's all the Dems had so they were forced to take all of that meaningless testimony and utilize selective portions of it to construct a fabricated narrative which fit the guilty narrative the Dems were after.

 

On the other hand, the Dems refused Republicans their witnesses.  Witnesses who could confirm Biden corruption, thus proving that Trump's request for assistance was justified and was not requested merely to harm a political opponent.  The Democrats refused to allow Trump or the Republicans to make their case.  The Dems have been hellbent on removing Trump by any means necessary since before he took office.  To allow witnesses who could prove Trump's innocence could never be allowed as that would be antithetical to their stated goal.

 

You see, the House impeachment investigation was a sham because it was not a true investigation.  It was an inquisition.  The verdict was predetermined from the start.  A true investigation is one which seeks the truth and nothing but the truth.  There can be no predetermination of guilt or innocence.  The facts must be followed without bias for the truth to be known.  It is painfully obvious that the Democrats did not want truth but only a guilty verdict since, as I said, the entirety of their impeachment effort was for one purpose and one purpose only . . . the removal of a duly elected President of the United States.

 

Just as the House chose to play by rules they controlled the Senate now gets to play by rules they choose.  If Senators feel they have heard enough to dispense a just verdict then hearing from new witnesses is unwarranted.

 

Heap all of your disgust and repulsion on the Democrats.  The Republicans will have none of it.

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Tippaporn

[candide]

Republican Senators had to choose between two bad options.

They seem to think it would be worse for them to hear witnesses who will extend the current accumulated evidence and be suspected of partiality by acquitting Trump, rather than be suspected of trying to cover him up by not calling witnesses before acquitting him. 

[candide]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You avoided answering my question.  But I'm not surprised.  An honest answer would require a painful (for some) shift in perception.

 

In any case, the Republicans weren't decrying the lack of witnesses with first hand knowledge.  They were decrying the fact that none of the Dem witnesses had first hand knowledge, with the exception of Vindman who was on the call and Sondland who spoke with the President.  And since none of the witnesses had first hand knowledge then all they could offer as testimony was their speculations, feelings, suppositions, assumptions, etc.  In other words, none of those witnesses knew anything with certainty.  Yet that's all the Dems had so they were forced to take all of that meaningless testimony and utilize selective portions of it to construct a fabricated narrative which fit the guilty narrative the Dems were after.

 

On the other hand, the Dems refused Republicans their witnesses.  Witnesses who could confirm Biden corruption, thus proving that Trump's request for assistance was justified and was not requested merely to harm a political opponent.  The Democrats refused to allow Trump or the Republicans to make their case.  The Dems have been hellbent on removing Trump by any means necessary since before he took office.  To allow witnesses who could prove Trump's innocence could never be allowed as that would be antithetical to their stated goal.

 

You see, the House impeachment investigation was a sham because it was not a true investigation.  It was an inquisition.  The verdict was predetermined from the start.  A true investigation is one which seeks the truth and nothing but the truth.  There can be no predetermination of guilt or innocence.  The facts must be followed without bias for the truth to be known.  It is painfully obvious that the Democrats did not want truth but only a guilty verdict since, as I said, the entirety of their impeachment effort was for one purpose and one purpose only . . . the removal of a duly elected President of the United States.

 

Heap all of your disgust and repulsion on the Democrats.  The Republicans will have none of it.

They had the true witnesses they called, except the whistleblower who wanted to remain anonymous. The others could not witness anything about what Trump did.

And the true witnesses they called had been already called by the Democrats, so there was no risk they could bring additional evidence. What a bunch of hypocrites!

Same as when they tried to force their way into a room in which they were already present! ????

Edited January 31, 2020 by candide

[WalkingOrders]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

The Reps senators aren’t not fulfilling their part to have witnesses and documents even though the constitution clearly does not limit senate power to perform its own inquiry. Trump’s administration refused to cooperate with the House and the Reps led senate should now use its authority to compel appearances by current and former administration officials. No excuse as precedents have been set by previous senate house to call for witnesses in previous impeachment trial including those of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. In refusing new witnesses, the senate Reps are shirking their duty and aiding in a cover-up instigated by Trump. Sad and shameful. 

This does not make a lick of sense. Seriously.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, candide said:

They had the true witnesses they called, except the whistleblower who wanted to remain anonymous. The others could not witness anything about what Trump did.

And the true witnesses they called had been already called by the Democrats, so there was no risk they could bring additional evidence. What a bunch of hypocrites!

Same as when they tried to force their way into a room in which they were present already! ????

The whistle blower has no legal right to anonymity.  Period.

 

Some folks here refuse to accept the fact that the Bidens are relevant. As one of Trump's lawyers pointed out, rightfully so, that if Biden withheld the billion dollars in a quid pro quo to protect his son then the Democrat's narrative would instantly dissolve.  Some folks here refuse to consider any other possible explanation.  Some folks here do not seek truth but have only a singular desire to have Trump removed from office.  And they care not one whit of the damage they are willing to inflict along the way.  The means justify the ends for these folks.

 

There are many, many, many people who do not share the same perspective as the libs/Dems.  Thankfully.

[WalkingOrders]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

You don't see Ukraine as being at gunpoint.  It is difficult to debate with someone who is uninformed and insists on staying that way.

I think the Ukrainians are damn lucky that Donald Trump was elected. And are happily looking forward to 4 more years of a straight talking whitehouse.

[Eric Loh]

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You avoided answering my question.  But I'm not surprised.  An honest answer would require a painful (for some) shift in perception.

 

In any case, the Republicans weren't decrying the lack of witnesses with first hand knowledge.  They were decrying the fact that none of the Dem witnesses had first hand knowledge, with the exception of Vindman who was on the call and Sondland who spoke with the President.  And since none of the witnesses had first hand knowledge then all they could offer as testimony was their speculations, feelings, suppositions, assumptions, etc.  In other words, none of those witnesses knew anything with certainty.  Yet that's all the Dems had so they were forced to take all of that meaningless testimony and utilize selective portions of it to construct a fabricated narrative which fit the guilty narrative the Dems were after.

 

On the other hand, the Dems refused Republicans their witnesses.  Witnesses who could confirm Biden corruption, thus proving that Trump's request for assistance was justified and was not requested merely to harm a political opponent.  The Democrats refused to allow Trump or the Republicans to make their case.  The Dems have been hellbent on removing Trump by any means necessary since before he took office.  To allow witnesses who could prove Trump's innocence could never be allowed as that would be antithetical to their stated goal.

 

You see, the House impeachment investigation was a sham because it was not a true investigation.  It was an inquisition.  The verdict was predetermined from the start.  A true investigation is one which seeks the truth and nothing but the truth.  There can be no predetermination of guilt or innocence.  The facts must be followed without bias for the truth to be known.  It is painfully obvious that the Democrats did not want truth but only a guilty verdict since, as I said, the entirety of their impeachment effort was for one purpose and one purpose only . . . the removal of a duly elected President of the United States.

 

Just as the House chose to play by rules they controlled the Senate now gets to play by rules they choose.  If Senators feel they have heard enough to dispense a just verdict then hearing from new witnesses is unwarranted.

 

Heap all of your disgust and repulsion on the Democrats.  The Republicans will have none of it.

 

A lot of words but little substance. Next. 

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

This does not make a lick of sense. Seriously.

Coming from you, I neither care or bother. 

[WalkingOrders]

So can Hunter Biden man up now and give Ukraine back the money he took from the Ukrainian people?

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

A lot of words but little substance. Next. 

Substantive enough to get Trump re-elected.