Jump to content

U.S. Senate votes against calling witnesses in Trump impeachment trial, clearing way for acquittal


rooster59

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

It's over... the dems had their chance. 3 years of litigation, Mueller investigation, no evidence, House trial, no evidence, it's over. Now the dems have to resurrect Hillary Clinton. Clinton will be the nominee and she will lose again. If the American's want Trump out, they will now have to vote him out. The investigation of Trump is over. 

I doubt it. They know they have no chance in Nov and will continue their attempt to prevent the people of the US from voting for the candidate of their choice.

 

Here is Shumer scolding Kamala Harris at his press conference. She can't keep a straight face while he spins his BS.

 

I'd post the direct twitter link but that might get deleted. Look at the twitter gif that's halfway down the article.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/chuck-schumer-scolds-kamala-harris-sherrod-brown-impeachment-trial

 

Warning, this is funny and addictive. Hard to stop watching  and laughing at the clown show.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

No he was lying to protect ukraine from trump.


He was/is willing to lie in front of the world to protect the Ukraine from Trump, but he was not willing to announce a phony Biden investigation to protect Ukraine from Trump. 
 

Got it.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Go back and read again.

 

The interview was scheduled.  According to Zelinsky's aides he was going to announce the nonsensical investigations.  However after the news about the whistleblower came out and the aid was released he canceled the interview.

 

The house did not compel witnesses to testify because it would have tied up the proceeding for months if not years while Trump took every subpoena to testify to court and appealed every adverse ruling.


Yes, the aids the Times claims to have talked to. 


The Senate has no more power to compel testimony than does the House. Had the Senate voted to allow additional witnesses Trump still would have blocked testimony. 
 

The House just wanted the show, and (perhaps) wants to block the next Supreme Court nomination. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mavideol said:

always thought that a trial needed to hear witnesses for acquittal or guilty verdicts.... guess in the so called greatest democracy in the word corruption/blackmail/threats are the easy way for acquittal, that's a very sad day for the USA


There were witnesses in the House investigation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:


There were witnesses in the House investigation.

Thought the Reps were complaining those in the House trial don’t have first hand information. They now have the opportunity to call on first hand witnesses and they shirked. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mogandave said:


Yes, the aids the Times claims to have talked to. 


The Senate has no more power to compel testimony than does the House. Had the Senate voted to allow additional witnesses Trump still would have blocked testimony. 
 

The House just wanted the show, and (perhaps) wants to block the next Supreme Court nomination. 
 

Funny that none of these aides, or anyone from Ukraine, has disputed the NY Times story.  But clearly you don't want to believe it, so it must be fake.

 

Having Trump using Executive Privilege to block testimony to both houses of Congress would have sent a strong message to the voters.  However the message has been received by all those with open minds, and never would have been received by those with closed minds.

 

The House just wanted to show that there are consequences for the President abusing his office.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TKDfella said:

I have no politics in this one way or the other. I have watched as much as an outsider individual can via the net as possible...yep many hours. It seems to me that the Dems should have proved their case, witnesses and all, within the House proceedings, which in the final Q & A session the Dems said that procedural rules were the responsibility of the House and would determine such procedures, for the House, that they considered appropriate. So this admits the Dems to do all the work for the impeachment and finally arriving at a vote in yes/no on impeachment. But it seems to me that they rushed it leaving loop holes which the Reps could take advantage of and, in my view, is what happened. There were many times that the Dems were repeating themselves over and over which is a clear sign that they trying to form their case in the Senate as it went on. Their case should have been complete before taking it to the Senate.

You can not have it both ways. I have posted it two times (perhaps you have not seen it) 

The republican rational was that there was no first hand witnesses, now that there is a first  hand witness (Bolton)  the rational is "LAMAR ALEXANDER: TRUMP OBVIOUSLY DID IT, SO NO NEED TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES BEFORE WE ACQUIT " in case you don't know who Lamar alexander is. He is the long time republican senator who was pivotal in not calling witnesses. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/lamar-alexander-impeachment-witnesses

trump said Make America great again, instead he has turned America into a Banana Republic.

Edited by sirineou
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Funny that none of these aides, or anyone from Ukraine, has disputed the NY Times story.  But clearly you don't want to believe it, so it must be fake.

 

Having Trump using Executive Privilege to block testimony to both houses of Congress would have sent a strong message to the voters.  However the message has been received by all those with open minds, and never would have been received by those with closed minds.

 

The House just wanted to show that there are consequences for the President abusing his office.


Why would the dispute it or even know about it? 
 

I don’t know if he was going to announce it or not, but you are absolutely certain he was after reading a “news” article. Then you go on to call me close minded. Typical. 


He couldn’t have blocked the testimony twice, and even if he could, the testimony in the House would have been admissible, yes? Surely you know this, but there you go pretending it was something besides a show. 
 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You can not have it both ways. I have posted it two times (perhaps you have not seen it) 

The republican rational was that there was no first hand witnesses, now that there is a first  hand witness (Bolton)  the rational is "LAMAR ALEXANDER: TRUMP OBVIOUSLY DID IT, SO NO NEED TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES BEFORE WE ACQUIT " in case you don't know who Lamar alexander is. He is the long time republican senator who was pivotal in not calling witnesses. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/lamar-alexander-impeachment-witnesses

trump said Make America great again, instead he has turned America into a Banana Republic.


You can post it all you want, but premise is wrong. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Will you be when he is acquitted (FOREVER)?

Acquitted by those Reps cowards who decided to serve him rather than the people. 2 Rep senators broke rank. The seam is weakening and long days ahead with more dirts unearthed. Still an impeached tarred POTUS. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swiss-Cheese-like political and constitutional system in the USA is the main reason for this failure. Sorry, that I repeat it.

 

Must not talk again about the strange effect, that the POTUS does NOT need the majority of votes.

 

Completely idiotic is the system in this impeachment case.

 

The Senate, a political member in the system, decides about an impeachment. That means interests of special groups decide on a question/problem which has to be solved by jurists ... and not by influenced people who are afraid of losing their job in the next election, being harassed by the LOTUS or the REP-party ..... . 

 

Jurist have the reputation to be neutral. That means they are the ones who are mostly near to the truth, and in this case to the facts.

 

 

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

They are probably going to have to beg her to run against trump...none of their present

candidates can make it.

All of them can but some have better odds than others. I get it that HRC running again is a 45 cult of personality adherent fantasy but sorry, not gonna happen. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...