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

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

 

All hearsay.  None of those witnesses were witnesses to anything other than their own feelings or some other bureaucrat repeating something to them.  Better called gossipers.

 

The only firsthand witness who had a conversation with Trump was Sondland.  He already admitted that his ideas of quid pro quo were his own "presumptions."  

No it's not all hearsay. But I guess you agree with the vast majority of Americans that now is the time to hear from key witnesses that were stonewalled by the Whitehouse, yeah?

[WalkingOrders]

 

 

14 minutes ago, candide said:

A set of converging testimonies and written evidence which has been confirmed by each new information and has remained uncontested.

Until 1pm US Eastern Time

[candide]

13 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

 

 

Until 1pm US Eastern Time

There are no witnesses scheduled during the Republican presentations, so no one will contest previous testimonies under oath.

[WalkingOrders]

6 minutes ago, candide said:

There are no witnesses scheduled during the Republican presentations, so no one will contest previous testimonies under oath.

Oh, I must have misunderstood you. My apology.

[Ricohoc]

1 hour ago, candide said:

A set of converging testimonies and written evidence which has been confirmed by each new information and has remained uncontested.

There is only one witness from the House impeachment hearings who had a conversation with Trump regarding aid to Ukraine: Sondland.  He stated that Trump told him that he didn't want anything in return for the aid.  Sondland also said that his belief in a quid pro quo was his own "presumption."  

 

Converging testimony and written feelings and beliefs of people who thought that something was happening, but could not produce any firsthand evidence or firsthand knowledge -- or didn't even have a conversation with Trump, means that it was all just hearsay.  

[i84teen]

The only "unexplained convergence of..." is that impeachment was started before the infamous phone call and UA fiasco.

 

Congress' first efforts to impeach Trump were initiated by Democratic representatives Al Green and Brad Sherman in 2017.

 

Connect the "convergence" dots and see what this impeachment is REALLY about. The fallout is nothing but damage to the American way and nothing of substance is accomplished except the only thing that matters, Trump and the truth until JAN@2025.

[Ricohoc]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

No it's not all hearsay. But I guess you agree with the vast majority of Americans that now is the time to hear from key witnesses that were stonewalled by the Whitehouse, yeah?

The time to hear from witnesses and the presentation of evidence was in the House. 

 

The Democrats didn't even bother to have a full House vote so that they could subpoena witnesses and have the power to subvert many efforts of executive privilege.  Instead, Nancy did it unilaterally and put it in the wrong committee. As a result, the House could only send out letters requesting testimony, which you or I could do with the same enforcement power.  House Dems blew it.

 

In the Senate, it is time to judge the evidence presented by the House.

[WalkingOrders]

6 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

The time to hear from witnesses and the presentation of evidence was in the House. 

 

The Democrats didn't even bother to have a full House vote so that they could subpoena witnesses and have the power to subvert many efforts of executive privilege.  Instead, Nancy did it unilaterally and put it in the wrong committee. As a result, the House could only send out letters requesting testimony, which you or I could do with the same enforcement power.  House Dems blew it.

 

In the Senate, it is time to judge the evidence presented by the House.

30 more minutes...

[i84teen]

7 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

The time to hear from witnesses and the presentation of evidence was in the House. 

 

The Democrats didn't even bother to have a full House vote so that they could subpoena witnesses and have the power to subvert many efforts of executive privilege.  Instead, Nancy did it unilaterally and put it in the wrong committee. As a result, the House could only send out letters requesting testimony, which you or I could do with the same enforcement power.  House Dems blew it.

 

In the Senate, it is time to judge the evidence presented by the House.

I seem to recall the House HAD issued a subpoena for Bolton to testify before Congress but they pulled it or quashed it for obvious reasons?

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I appreciate your love of the Bidens and disdain for Trump, but I thought the Democrats are acusing Trump of abusing power by asking a foreign Nation to interfere in the 2020 election by investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma, among other things. A defense to that is that trump was acting in the interest of the USA by investigating corruption of someone who by coincidence happens to be son of his opponent who was the VP, and by coincidence happened to be on the board of an oil and gas company coincidentally as his Father was point man on Ukraine policy, which coincidentally was aimed at increasing Ukraine gas production, and by coincidence was receiving monthly checks, and by coincidence when said Company was being investigated, the then VP Daddy demanded his firing or he would withold Billions in the name of then President Obama, but has nothing to do with an impeachment in which ... ah its getting too ridiculous to go on....

No that is not a defence. He could ask the senate, doj, state dept to investigate then it goes through the proper channels to get to asking the ukraine. He didnt do that.

 

correct, what bidens did or didnt do has nothing to do with what trump did. Even if the bidens are guilty of anything and everything accused of it has no bearing on trumps trial.

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

The time to hear from witnesses and the presentation of evidence was in the House. 

 

The Democrats didn't even bother to have a full House vote so that they could subpoena witnesses and have the power to subvert many efforts of executive privilege.  Instead, Nancy did it unilaterally and put it in the wrong committee. As a result, the House could only send out letters requesting testimony, which you or I could do with the same enforcement power.  House Dems blew it.

 

In the Senate, it is time to judge the evidence presented by the House.

You have a weird, and wrong, idea of the difference between an investigation and a trial and what powers the senate has.

 

You do know in the clinton trial the senate called witnesses that didnt testify in congress. Yes im sire you knew that. 

[WalkingOrders]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No that is not a defence. He could ask the senate, doj, state dept to investigate then it goes through the proper channels to get to asking the ukraine. He didnt do that.

 

correct, what bidens did or didnt do has nothing to do with what trump did. Even if the bidens are guilty of anything and everything accused of it has no bearing on trumps trial.

Well the argument goes live in 20 minutes. Well see how it goes.

[i84teen]

14 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

30 more minutes...

This bunch of high profile (and hi-paid) white house lawyers can be expected to pick the House's bones clean like a Hooters chicken wing in Dallas during happy hour, today on the hill at 11am central. It promises to be entertaining and when these pitbulls have wrapped up I am sure Schiff et al may rethink their outlooks on life after they mop the floor with them.

[WalkingOrders]

2 minutes ago, i84teen said:

This bunch of high profile (and hi-paid) white house lawyers can be expected to pick the senate's bones clean like a Hooters chicken wing in Dallas during happy hour, today on the hill at 11am central. It promises to be entertaining and when these pitbulls have wrapped up I am sure Schiff may rethink his outlook on life after they mop the floor with him.

I expect them to stay right on point with as few words as possible

[rabas]

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

correct, what bidens did or didnt do has nothing to do with what trump did. Even if the bidens are guilty of anything and everything accused of it has no bearing on trumps trial.

Why?

[Jingthing]

There has never before been an Impeachment trial in the senate in American history without witnesses. 

 

There is no good reason that this trial shouldn't have witnesses as well. 

 

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

 

 

The Senate has conducted 15 impeachment trials. It heard witnesses in every one.

Historical precedent is clear, and it’s not on Trump’s side.

[i84teen]

3 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I expect them to stay right on point with as few words as possible

Ever hear an attorney say as few words as possible? Ha ha ha.

 

But yeah, I agree, I think they will rebut as required, avoid democratic like theatrics and lies and work for their Client in professional manner.

[candide]

31 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

There is only one witness from the House impeachment hearings who had a conversation with Trump regarding aid to Ukraine: Sondland.  He stated that Trump told him that he didn't want anything in return for the aid.  Sondland also said that his belief in a quid pro quo was his own "presumption."  

 

Converging testimony and written feelings and beliefs of people who thought that something was happening, but could not produce any firsthand evidence or firsthand knowledge -- or didn't even have a conversation with Trump, means that it was all just hearsay.  

B.S.! Not only feelings and beliefs. Plenty of facts , dates, etc.. I.e. the text messages between Volker, Sondland and Giuliani. And until now, no one (under oath) or no document has contradicted the testimonies and document evidence.

[i84teen]

11 minutes ago, rabas said:

Why?

In furtherance, if Biden did nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, then how does this help Trump and thus help him win the election as claimed?

 

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

Oh, I must have misunderstood you. My apology.

Remember what Kellyanne said. ????

[candide]

11 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I was being sarcastic at your inability to admit your own wrongs by fluidly changing your story

I was just answering your tentative deflection. Which changing story? Which wrongs? Isn't it obvious that people can tell any B.S. while not under oath? 

[Tug]

Hey don’t worry what is it now?polling around 80%want doc and wittiness naaaa 2020 is just around the corner let the republicans show their colors if they don’t allow a trial there will be a heavy price to pay come 2020 a heavy price indeed

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Why?

Because the bidens dont know anything about holding ukraine to ransom.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, i84teen said:

In furtherance, if Biden did nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, then how does this help Trump and thus help him win the election as claimed?

 

 

Testimony was that trump didnt even want an investigation, just the announcement of one.

 

If you dont understand that the announcement of an investigation can hurt your oponent, like fbi re opening hilarys email investigation, then im afraid their is no hope for you.

 

of all the corruption in the ukraine, one of the most corrupt countrys, why would you ask a corrupt country to investigate. Why ask that only one thing be investigated that just happens to be his rival.

[Sujo]

The interesting thing is that more and more evidence is coming out. Repubs will not allow witnesses. They will sure look bad when all this further evidence is coming out.

 

they will have a lot of explaining to do to their voters.

[Sujo]

OMG i cant believe they are still going on about ukraine meddling which has been debunked by everyone.

 

Really clutching at straws, irrelevant straws.

[rabas]

36 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I was being sarcastic at your inability to admit your own wrongs by fluidly changing your story

You have coined a phrase. The "fluidity" of Trump accusers. He fluidly denied his own statement while maintaining it. Like Mueller not exonerating Trump while not able to not exonerate anyone. And some thought that a tight legal argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[rabas]

19 minutes ago, Sujo said:

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Why?

Because the bidens dont know anything about holding ukraine to ransom.

biden(s)? OK, so only joe was recorded bragging about it. More fluidity.

 

[Sujo]

Just now, rabas said:

biden(s)? OK, so only joe was recorded bragging about it. More fluidity.

 

So what. What has that to do with trump.

 

Why is biden not being investigated. Are repubs that incompetent? And you support them.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

1.  The context is what is in the transcript.  Nothing more.  The context is not what others want to create and claim is proven.  According to those who spoke directly with the the POTUS, Trump withheld aid based on the election of the new president and to ensure that the new president was sincere in heading off corruption in Ukraine.  Trump never mentioned any public announcement on the part of the Ukraine of an investigation into Biden.  No such public announcement is mentioned in either of the two transcripts that were declassified and released, and the officials in the Ukraine have said there was no such condition placed upon them. Of the witnesses who testified in the House, only one -- Sondland -- had direct discussions with Trump regarding Ukraine aid.  Sondland testified that Trump told him he wanted nothing in return for the aid.  Sondland also stated that any ideas he had personally regarding quid pro quo regarding the aid was his own "presumption." 

 

2.  In Trump's case, there is no such evidence of abuse of executive privilege.  Trump didn't even claim executive privilege in the Mueller Investigation.  All witnesses, including Trump's attorney, were allowed to meet with Mueller's team.

 

3.  All presidents are citizens entitled to the same rights as any other citizen.

 

 

The context includes the sworn testimony of those involved in the negotiations, people with nothing to gain by lying and a great deal to lose.  The context also includes the President invoking Executive privilege to prevent people with knowledge of his actions from testifying.  Why would he do that unless he were guilty?

 

Trump made his "want nothing" announcement after he learned that a whistleblower had exposed him.  The Ukraine government is reading the same press that we are, and is certain that Trump will remain President.  They know Trump is a vindictive man who will get revenge against the country if they confirm the obvious.