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

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

According to that same Ukrainian attendee, Telizhenko, Obama officials at the meeting brought up concern regarding perceptions of Biden and Burisma being linked.

 

Vogel goes silent.

Still no link to a credible source.

[Jingthing]

48 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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.

Exactly. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-impeachment-evidence-will-catch-up-to-republicans-and-trump--whether-they-ignore-it-or-not/2020/01/24/c06e9246-3ec3-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html

 

The impeachment evidence will catch up to Republicans and Trump — whether they ignore it or not

[candide]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

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)_/¯

Fluidity, interesting characterisation. How would you characterise equalling testimonies under oath with public statements?

[JHolmesJr]

Today was a very satisfying day....watching trumps lawyers tear down all the lies, innuendo, assumptions

and inferences that the impeachment managers....I was struck by how respectfully they addressed the senators.

Case closed as far as I can see.

[candide]

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Today was a very satisfying day....watching trumps lawyers tear down all the lies, innuendo, assumptions

and inferences that the impeachment managers....I was struck by how respectfully they addressed the senators.

Case closed as far as I can see.

Did they show any evidence to support their speech?

[JHolmesJr]

14 minutes ago, candide said:

Did they show any evidence to support their speech?

Yawn...were you even watching?

 

 

[simple1]

58 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Yawn...were you even watching?

 

 

How about answering the question? trump's defence is based upon unproven conspiracy theories, lies and the stated intent by republican senators to support trump no matter the evidence against him i.e. obstruction of justice. Led by trump, republicans are making a farce of the impeachment trial process; hopefully trump and his sycophants will pay a very heavy price in 11/20.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/25/assessing-trump-teams-6-point-impeachment-defense/?utm_campaign=wp_evening_edition&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_evening

Edited January 25, 2020 by simple1

[candide]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

Yawn...were you even watching?

 

 

So no evidence. I just wanted to make sure I did not miss anything  while I fell asleep.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I felt that in this case the only rational response was comedy to highlight the absurd.

Yet there was nothing absurd in the post you replied to, nothing rational about your reply, and you failed as a comedian.

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.  

 

[Sujo]

Trumps lawyers were very disjointed plus a fair bit of misdirection. Even had one guy make the case for witnesses when he said cross examination is the greatest engine for discovery of truth.

 

They certainly need someone like schiff on their team. A very poor effort by them.

[Chiphigh]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

Just in:  A TV newbie makes bold claims without providing a link to a source.  Nobody believes him.

That is quite condescending, but I assume you have not been like this before, for now. If just happened at the time of the post. 

 

So here is the link with the summary. I assume that you will discount it. I will try to get the actual emails pdf and post it as well, so you can't deny its viability. 

 

https://apnews.com/7b7d698b9a660997f5e755d92b775d98

[Berkshire]

30 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Trumps lawyers were very disjointed plus a fair bit of misdirection. Even had one guy make the case for witnesses when he said cross examination is the greatest engine for discovery of truth.

 

They certainly need someone like schiff on their team. A very poor effort by them.

One of the key arguments Trump lawyers had was that they didn't see any direct evidence from the House.  There weren't any witnesses who had direct communication with the President! 

 

I don't know if they realize that this supports the Dems contention that the Senate should subpoena said witnesses. 

[Sujo]

26 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

One of the key arguments Trump lawyers had was that they didn't see any direct evidence from the House.  There weren't any witnesses who had direct communication with the President! 

 

I don't know if they realize that this supports the Dems contention that the Senate should subpoena said witnesses. 

True, they complain about lack of evidence but refuse to call them.

 

The only way to get to the truth when both sides are so far apart is to call witnesses and documents.

 

These things will come out eventually and repubs will look ridiculous and have a lot of explaining to do.

[mogandave]

58 minutes ago, Sujo said:

They certainly need someone like schiff on their team. A very poor effort by them.

I would rather the NOT have anyone like Schiff on their team. 
 

He sounds like a buffoon to me yet all the “journalists” seem to be falling all over themselves with how “dazzling” he is.
 

Apparently the left is easily dazzled..

[mogandave]

29 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I don't know if they realize that this supports the Dems contention that the Senate should subpoena said witnesses. 

Well it certainly supports the Senate’s contention that the House should have subpoenaed the witnesses they wanted and completed putting their case together before they put it before the Senate. 

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The only way to get to the truth when both sides are so far apart is to call witnesses and documents.

Or just dismiss it and let the left complete their case and try again. 
 

What happened to all the documents and testimony that you swore overwhelmingly proved Trump’s guilt? 
 

 

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Or just dismiss it and let the left complete their case and try again. 
 

What happened to all the documents and testimony that you swore overwhelmingly proved Trump’s guilt? 

All those documents and testimonies got him convicted by the House. Now is for the Reps senators to reciprocate and called for the witnesses and documents stonewalled by WH. 
 

Don’t they want any the truth like you? Oh never mind. 

[Ricohoc]

12 hours ago, candide said:

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.

None of that was proof of anything other than people other than Trump talking about what they thought Trump wanted.  

[Srikcir]

Overlooked and forgotten by the House impeachment presentation to the Senate is the fact that Trump's "perfect phone call" transcript was not the original transcript.

The “transcript” was abridged.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/rough-transcript-trump-call-zelensky-cover-up-ukraine-impeachment.html

• It contains ellipses in several places, which call summaries with foreign leaders usually do not.
• The word count does not match the reported length of the conversation: It takes about ten minutes to read the White House–released summary, whereas the conversation took three times that long. It has half the number of words per minute as transcripts of other calls Trump has had with foreign leaders.
• The supposed rough transcript “is unusual for lacking a tracking number that would normally indicate it had been circulated to senior subject experts and the national security adviser’s office for review and edits,” and “carries classification markings that Situation Room staffers do not normally add when they create a word-for-word transcript.”

Trump's impeachment defense before the Senate is in effect partially based on a false document created by the White House.

[candide]

2 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

None of that was proof of anything other than people other than Trump talking about what they thought Trump wanted.  

So if not true, it would be easy to contradict under oath or with documents, right?

[Ricohoc]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

Those involved in the negotiations had no direct contact with Trump other than Sondland.  Some admitted that they had never met Trump or even had any conversation with him ever. All POTUS have the right to executive privilege.  That is not against the law or impeachable.  Mounting a defense vs those undermining your foreign policy and insinuating things that did not happen, is also not against the law or impeachable.

 

Trump's conversation with Sondland took place LONG before the gossipblower was involved in the charade.

 

I don't pretend to know the motivations of the Ukrainian government officials and what they are thinking.  As I understand it, they're a bit peeved that Democrats have accused them of lying.

[Ricohoc]

39 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

All those documents and testimonies got him convicted by the House. Now is for the Reps senators to reciprocate and called for the witnesses and documents stonewalled by WH. 
 

Don’t they want any the truth like you? Oh never mind. 

No.  No POTUS has ever been convicted in the House.  Impeachment is a charge(s), an indictment.

 

There is no automatic reciprocation required by the Senate, which is there to hear and see evidence presented by the House managers.  The House finished their case in an incomplete and shoddy fashion by stubbing their toe on the failure to have a House vote to begin the impeachment investigation in the Judiciary Committee.  They would have been able to issue subpoenas with force behind them and even compelled some witnesses -- some -- to appear despite any claims of executive privilege.  It's not the Senate's job to clean up Nancy's mess.

 

 

[Ricohoc]

12 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Overlooked and forgotten by the House impeachment presentation to the Senate is the fact that Trump's "perfect phone call" transcript was not the original transcript.

The “transcript” was abridged.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/rough-transcript-trump-call-zelensky-cover-up-ukraine-impeachment.html

• It contains ellipses in several places, which call summaries with foreign leaders usually do not.
• The word count does not match the reported length of the conversation: It takes about ten minutes to read the White House–released summary, whereas the conversation took three times that long. It has half the number of words per minute as transcripts of other calls Trump has had with foreign leaders.
• The supposed rough transcript “is unusual for lacking a tracking number that would normally indicate it had been circulated to senior subject experts and the national security adviser’s office for review and edits,” and “carries classification markings that Situation Room staffers do not normally add when they create a word-for-word transcript.”

Trump's impeachment defense before the Senate is in effect partially based on a false document created by the White House.

 

Testimony of those in the House inquiry, who were on the phone call, said the transcript was accurate.  And as we all know, those witnesses were called by Democrats.  Republicans were denied the ability to call witnesses.

 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

All those documents and testimonies got him convicted by the House. Now is for the Reps senators to reciprocate and called for the witnesses and documents stonewalled by WH. 
 

Don’t they want any the truth like you? Oh never mind. 

When was he convicted? 
 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by mogandave
Added “he”

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, candide said:

So if not true, it would be easy to contradict under oath or with documents, right?

Absolutely. 
 

That’s why the left should have completed their case prior to presenting it. 

[mogandave]

49 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Republicans were denied the ability to call witnesses.

 

This is a lie!

 

The Republicans could call any witnesses the Democrats wanted called.
 

They were also allowed to ask any witness any question the Democrats wanted asked.
 

[JHolmesJr]

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

How about answering the question? trump's defence is based upon unproven conspiracy theories, lies and the stated intent by republican senators to support trump no matter the evidence against him i.e. obstruction of justice. Led by trump, republicans are making a farce of the impeachment trial process....

 

Hmmmm...the only lies Ive seen so far are from the Dems, particularly Adam Schiff...starting with his made up

rendition of Trump's call. In legal terms this is misdirection of the highest order, designed to deceive and defraud

the American people. Other made up claims include Trump asking for dirt to be "fabricated" on Biden. That wasn't

ever said or recorded. You can't make up stuff to overturn the election.

 

No wonder Schiff is the most reviled democrat, followed closely by Nadler who makes some shockingly 

rude and defamatory accusations against republican senators.

 

The Dems are basically desperate to get control of the WH since Trump is all set to pick a replacement 

for Ginsburg...that will tilt the SCOTUS to 6-3 conservative....a huuuuuuge blow for Dem aspirations for generations.

That's the long game here....it's not really about what Trump did. That....and to create a buffer for when Durham starts raining down indictments...Dems are in a state of panic.

[Sujo]

Better tell some repubs, including lindsay graham who congratulated schiff on a great job.

 

Btw, asking ukraine to investigate something where there is no evidence is indeed fabrication.

 

The rest of your post is just off topic waffle.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

I would rather the NOT have anyone like Schiff on their team. 
 

He sounds like a buffoon to me yet all the “journalists” seem to be falling all over themselves with how “dazzling” he is.
 

Apparently the left is easily dazzled..

So was lindsay graham. Didnt know he had left the dark side.