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

[candide]

49 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

He may not explicitly have that right but protecting him is in accordance with the intent of the law.

About Biden, this theory has been debunked already. Even Barr doesn't dare to open an investigation for fear of being ridiculous. 

And anyway this is not relevant for the case. Not more than knowing whetherTrump had been beaten or not when He was a child.

Edited January 31, 2020 by candide

[Ricohoc]

2 hours 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?

Yes, I've stated before, Democrats only respect precedent if it is to their benefit.  Otherwise, it's time to be progressive. LOL

 

Kind of foolish to expect anyone to cooperate with a body or institution when they deny due process, deny a legal presence, deny exculpatory evidence -- even deny QUESTIONS from Republican House members.

 

As you ably pointed out, the Democrats even denied their own House Rules to provide a day for Republicans to call their own witnesses.  Ooops.  Our bad, we made a mistake putting that in there.  We're not doing that.

 

The Senate, on the other hand, allowed equal time for both sides; allowed the Democrats to say and do whatever they wish.  Dems didn't prove their case.  That's the price paid for rushing through on a self-imposed time deadline instead of conducting a fair and impartial investigation.

 

The Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal branches of government.  When there is a difference of opinion, the Judicial branch is there to decide.  Dems passed.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

He may not explicitly have that right but protecting him is in accordance with the intent of the law.

About Biden, this theory has been debunked already. Even Barr doesn't dare to open an investigation for fear of being ridiculous. 

And anyway this is not relevant for the case. Not more than if Trump had been beaten when He was a child.

He may not explicitly have that right but protecting him is in accordance with the intent of the law.

 

As there is no legal basis for claiming continued anonymity then a seemingly plausible reason must be given to protect his identity.  The accuser must face the accused.  That is law.  You are arguing in favour of allowing people to accuse other people and then being able to remain anonymous.  Think about the consequences of that.  If it were allowed in this case then the same argument could made in every other case.  Are you willing to be accused by someone who does not have to identify himself due to the reasoning that you may retaliate against him?

 

About Biden, this theory has been debunked already.

 

Absolutely false.  And what evidence Bondi provides isn't at all inclusive of all the evidence thus far assembled.  It will come to light.

 

 

And anyway this is not relevant for the case.

 

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.  That, my friend, is the relevancy.

[mogandave]

6 hours ago, candide said:

Pathetic....

Even Graham says there is no investigation

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

 

Pathetic indeed. 
 

Once again you are making things up. Lindsey Graham did say there was no investigation of Biden in the article you linked to. He did say they should be investigated. Why would he know if the Bidens were being investigated anyway? 
 

So no, you still haven’t (as you claimed) shown any official statement that Joe (or any of the five Biden’s that have gotten rich as a result of his being in office) are being investigated. 
 

It amusing that you (apparently) believe an opinion piece in the “New Yorker” qualifies as an “official announcement from the DOJ”
 

Were the DOJ going to investigate Biden, why would they announce it? It wouldn’t help Trump and it would likely compromise the investigation. 
 

[candide]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

He may not explicitly have that right but protecting him is in accordance with the intent of the law.

 

As there is no legal basis for claiming continued anonymity then a seemingly plausible reason must be given to protect his identity.  The accuser must face the accused.  That is law.  You are arguing in favour of allowing people to accuse other people and then being able to remain anonymous.  Think about the consequences of that.  If it were allowed in this case then the same argument could made in every other case.  Are you willing to be accused by someone who does not have to identify himself due to the reasoning that you may retaliate against him?

 

About Biden, this theory has been debunked already.

 

Absolutely false.  And what evidence Bondi provides isn't at all inclusive of all the evidence thus far assembled.  It will come to light.

 

 

And anyway this is not relevant for the case.

 

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.  That, my friend, is the relevancy.

1. He cannot claim that right, but Schiff was in accordance with the intent of the law when he protected him. There is no law that forbids protecting WB.

2. It is debunked.

3. Trump defense lawyers can say what they want. Trump did commit an abuse of power in his personal interest.

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Yes, I've stated before, Democrats only respect precedent if it is to their benefit.  Otherwise, it's time to be progressive. LOL

 

Kind of foolish to expect anyone to cooperate with a body or institution when they deny due process, deny a legal presence, deny exculpatory evidence -- even deny QUESTIONS from Republican House members.

 

As you ably pointed out, the Democrats even denied their own House Rules to provide a day for Republicans to call their own witnesses.  Ooops.  Our bad, we made a mistake putting that in there.  We're not doing that.

 

The Senate, on the other hand, allowed equal time for both sides; allowed the Democrats to say and do whatever they wish.  Dems didn't prove their case.  That's the price paid for rushing through on a self-imposed time deadline instead of conducting a fair and impartial investigation.

 

The Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal branches of government.  When there is a difference of opinion, the Judicial branch is there to decide.  Dems passed.

 

Even more egregious is the claim by Schiff of 17 witnesses.  There were 18 witnesses.  It's unfathomable for me to consider how Schiff is able to conceal Atkinson's testimony.  I'm shocked that no one has taken him to task about it.

 

House Democrats conceal testimony of 18th witness from Trump team

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/23/michael-atkinson-testimony-concealed-adam-schiff/

[mogandave]

6 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.

Do why did Zelenskiy not make the announcement? 

 

Trump has his county effectively at gunpoint and yet he refuses to make a simple announcement? 
 

So he’s willing to lie to protect Trump,  but he’s not willing to make a simple announcement? 
 

 

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Pathetic indeed. 
 

Once again you are making things up. Lindsey Graham did say there was no investigation of Biden in the article you linked to. He did say they should be investigated. Why would he know if the Bidens were being investigated anyway? 
 

So no, you still haven’t (as you claimed) shown any official statement that Joe (or any of the five Biden’s that have gotten rich as a result of his being in office) are being investigated. 
 

It amusing that you (apparently) believe an opinion piece in the “New Yorker” qualifies as an “official announcement from the DOJ”
 

Were the DOJ going to investigate Biden, why would they announce it? It wouldn’t help Trump and it would likely compromise the investigation. 
 

Remember, too, that Lindsey Graham promised to have Giuliani testify to the Senate once the trial was over.  Rudy has his own site and podcast.  He's already completed Episode 2.  Do not expect to find it on a Google search.  Have to go to his Twitter feed to get the address.  That site also has links to 3 hours of an OAN special where they bring over Ukrainians to the U.S., officially swear them in and depose them.  All of that info will ultimately become so mainstream that no one will ever attempt to deny it again.

[mogandave]

3 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. 

Why did the House did use their authority to compel appearances? 
 

All the left ever wanted was the show. They don’t rally care about hearing any witnesses, if they did they would have heard them. 

[JHolmesJr]

7 hours ago, Sujo said:

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

 

just read the transcript it's all there.

[candide]

 

26 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Pathetic indeed. 
 

Once again you are making things up. Lindsey Graham did say there was no investigation of Biden in the article you linked to. He did say they should be investigated. Why would he know if the Bidens were being investigated anyway? 
 

So no, you still haven’t (as you claimed) shown any official statement that Joe (or any of the five Biden’s that have gotten rich as a result of his being in office) are being investigated. 
 

It amusing that you (apparently) believe an opinion piece in the “New Yorker” qualifies as an “official announcement from the DOJ”
 

Were the DOJ going to investigate Biden, why would they announce it? It wouldn’t help Trump and it would likely compromise the investigation. 
 

Ridiculous.

I provided a quote from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec in the washington examiner. So the DOJ spokeswomen was expressing an opinion?

But wait, if you believe this new conspiracy theory, what evidence do you have that there is an investigation? Why would the DOJ conspire to hide an official investigation?

Edited January 31, 2020 by candide

[mogandave]

55 minutes ago, candide said:

He may not explicitly have that right but protecting him is in accordance with the intent of the law.

About Biden, this theory has been debunked already. Even Barr doesn't dare to open an investigation for fear of being ridiculous. 

And anyway this is not relevant for the case. Not more than knowing whetherTrump had been beaten or not when He was a child.

What does the whistleblower need protection from? 
 

Who debunked the “Biden Theory”, Don Lemon? 

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, candide said:

1. He cannot claim that right, but Schiff was in accordance with the intent of the law when he protected him. There is no law that forbids protecting WB.

2. It is debunked.

3. Trump defense lawyers can say what they want. Trump did commit an abuse of power in his personal interest.

Again, do you quite understand the ramifications of what you are arguing for?  Anyone would be able to heretofore accuse anyone else of a crime and claim anonymity.  Is that the kind of world you want to live in?  This is what you are arguing in favour of.

 

Then please refute the facts as presented by Bondi.

 

Schiff and his lawyers can say what they want.  Trump is still innocent.  That argument goes both ways and neither proves anything.

[Fred white]

On 1/22/2020 at 7:10 AM, neeray said:

Acquittal or not, it doesn't really matter. What matters is the American electorate knows that he's guilty. Guilty of orchestrating a New York gangster-style "offer-you-can't-refuse" to the Ukraine President in order to assist his less than guaranteed election win by attempting to gather dirt on his prime opponent who isn't even yet his prime opponent.

Unfortunately, had the Republicans not stymied this impeachment effort, more damaging dirt on this POTUS would have surfaced. Mr President, this dirty trick backfired on you and on your Trump-Republican party.

Trump 2020

[candide]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Again, do you quite understand the ramifications of what you are arguing for?  Anyone would be able to heretofore accuse anyone else of a crime and claim anonymity.  Is that the kind of world you want to live in?  This is what you are arguing in favour of.

 

Then please refute the facts as presented by Bondi.

 

Schiff and his lawyers can say what they want.  Trump is still innocent.  That argument goes both ways and neither proves anything.

The whistleblower's claims have been more than confirmed by testimonies under oath and documents. You are one boat late.

I have provided links for you before with statements by the head of the IMF, the EU, Ukraine officials, former ambassador, etc... For a summary, look here:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

 

 

[candide]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

What does the whistleblower need protection from? 
 

Who debunked the “Biden Theory”, Don Lemon? 

The facts and quotes are here:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

[Fred white]

35 minutes ago, candide said:

1. He cannot claim that right, but Schiff was in accordance with the intent of the law when he protected him. There is no law that forbids protecting WB.

2. It is debunked.

3. Trump defense lawyers can say what they want. Trump did commit an abuse of power in his personal interest.

Trump did commit an abuse of power in his personal interest.  and you know this how did you do the investigation or are you just another one that can't stand it that your darling lost

[candide]

4 minutes ago, Fred white said:

Trump did commit an abuse of power in his personal interest.  and you know this how did you do the investigation or are you just another one that can't stand it that your darling lost

Why evidence do you have that contradicts testimonies under oath and documents accumulated so far?

[mogandave]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

 

Ridiculous.

I provided a quote from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec in the washington examiner. So the DOJ spokeswomen was expressing an opinion?

But wait, if you believe this new conspiracy theory, what evidence do you have that there is an investigation? Why would the DOJ conspire to hide an official investigation?

I think this is the quote from the article:

 

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.”

 

Where does she say there was no investigation of the Bidens?

 

Given the article is four months old, why would you insist it still somehow proves the Bidens are not being investigated? 
 

I’m not claiming the Bidens are under investigation, I’m only pointing out that we have no way of knowing one way or another.

 

Again, announcing an investigation does not help Trump (and could hurt him) and it could compromise the investigation. 
 

Does the DOJ typically announce when they start an investigation? 

[mogandave]

21 minutes ago, candide said:

The whistleblower's claims have been more than confirmed by testimonies under oath and documents. You are one boat late.

Then why are additional witnesses and documents needed? 
 

You guys have been claiming all along the evidence and testimony during the impeachment hearings overwhelmingly proved Trump’s guilt. 
 

What happened? 

[candide]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I think this is the quote from the article:

 

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.”

 

Where does she say there was no investigation of the Bidens?

 

Given the article is four months old, why would you insist it still somehow proves the Bidens are not being investigated? 
 

I’m not claiming the Bidens are under investigation, I’m only pointing out that we have no way of knowing one way or another.

 

Again, announcing an investigation does not help Trump (and could hurt him) and it could compromise the investigation. 
 

Does the DOJ typically announce when they start an investigation? 

Does the DOJ usually keep it secret? Why would it?

That would be a significant change after publicly announcing the Mueller investigation, the Horowitz investigation, the Durham investigation, the Giuliani and Parnas investigation, etc....

[candide]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Then why are additional witnesses and documents needed? 
 

You guys have been claiming all along the evidence and testimony during the impeachment hearings overwhelmingly proved Trump’s guilt. 
 

What happened? 

Why not? It makes Republican Senators look bad by refusing to call witnesses.

Edited January 31, 2020 by candide

[Tippaporn]

27 minutes ago, candide said:

The whistleblower's claims have been more than confirmed by testimonies under oath and documents. You are one boat late.

I have provided links for you before with statements by the head of the IMF, the EU, Ukraine officials, former ambassador, etc... For a summary, look here:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

 

I'll again remind you of what you are arguing for . . . the right of an accuser to retain anonymity.  In the United States of America an accuser must face the accused.  You are arguing against a longstanding, cherished, and foundational pillar of American justice.  Be very careful of what you ask for.

 

I had asked you to refute the facts Bondi presented.  If you are unable then that's fine with me.

[mogandave]

31 minutes ago, candide said:

The facts and quotes are here:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

 

So someone’s website debunked it. 

It doesn’t seem to say what the whistleblower needs to be protected drone. 
 

 

[mogandave]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

Does the DOJ usually keep it secret? Why would it?

That would be a significant change after publicly announcing the Mueller investigation, the Horowitz investigation, the Durham investigation, the Giuliani and Parnas investigation, etc....

So it’s your position the it is the DOJ’ policy publicly announce at all their investigations? 
 

[mogandave]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

Why not? It makes Republican Senators look bad by refusing to call witnesses.

Are you not able to actually answer a question? Can’t say I blame you. 
 

It only makes them look bad to the left. it makes the look good to much of the country. 

 

[Ricohoc]

45 minutes ago, candide said:

The whistleblower's claims have been more than confirmed by testimonies under oath and documents. You are one boat late.

 

. . .

 

 

 

Second- and third-hand feelings and beliefs shared by the gossipblower was confirmed by bureaucrats with similar second- and third-hand feelings and beliefs. 

 

Only one guy talked to Trump.  Only one guy got an answer from Trump.  Ambassador Sondland.  He's the only one with first-hand information, and it was not only in Trump's favor; but Sondland admitted that any ideas that he had about Trump and quid pro quo were Sondland's own presumption.  Under oath.

 

That boat sailed a long time ago.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Ricohoc

[WalkingOrders]

40 minutes ago, Fred white said:

Trump did commit an abuse of power in his personal interest.  and you know this how did you do the investigation or are you just another one that can't stand it that your darling lost

The vote will be soon. I predict Trump survives, and have you noticed Trump fills stadiums and Biden, all alone on the campaign trail can't fill a restaurant parking lot? Honestly, have you ever seen weaker candidates? Oh I forgot Buttigeig is still out there. I think. The excitement is overwhelming. Trump ratings have gone up, and Schiff and Pelosi bring 4 Senators off the campaign trail. It's too rich.

[candide]

17 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Second- and third-hand feelings and beliefs shared by the gossipblower was confirmed by bureaucrats with similar second- and third-hand feelings and beliefs. 

 

Only one guy talked to Trump.  Only one guy got an answer from Trump.  Ambassador Sondland.  He's the only one with first-hand information, and it was not only in Trump's favor; but Sondland admitted that any ideas that he had about Trump and quid pro quo were Sondland's own presumption.  Under oath.

 

That boat sailed a long time ago.

Yet no one contradicted the accumulated evidence under oath, nor did any document. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by candide

[WalkingOrders]

27 minutes ago, candide said:

Does the DOJ usually keep it secret? Why would it?

That would be a significant change after publicly announcing the Mueller investigation, the Horowitz investigation, the Durham investigation, the Giuliani and Parnas investigation, etc....

Yeah  actually before world went crazy the DOJ keeps investigations secret. Durham, if he has himself looked at Ukraine, may have or be looking at Bidens, and not only in relation to Ukraine...you see if your son shows up on boards in more then one location, and family too, well....its interesting. Especially China.

 

The Democrats are done. Stick a fork in em, cooked, burnt! Honestly, the last investigation about FISA, was horrendous, and the Dossier was shown to be nothing but nonsense...grounded in zero reality at all. This will get real somber, and the party will go to war with itself when the first indictments come... and their coming....just my opinion...but time will tell.

 

The words "has been indicted" attached to former Obama officials...The End! Why is anyone supporting them at all, I mean I guess I can understand if its your only paycheck.