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

[sucit]

2 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

 

Yes. They all vote together, without even thinking about the actual issue, like high school cliques. Were you trying to support my point? 

[JerseytoBKK]

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.

 

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, Jonnapat said:

Repeating myself from yesterday this is not a trial, it's a completely partisan FARCE.

Being non American if I got my history right the Senate is supposed to be the balance to the congress not the mouthpiece of a president. 

As a non-American you have an excuse for not knowing the Senate is one of the two chambers that make up the US Congress. The House of Representatives is the other. 
 

When the House was divided on party lines why was it not “...a completely partisan FARCE.?
 

You should also understand that the House has the same authority to compel witnesses to testify as the Senate. THE HOUSE DID NOT REALLY WANT THE WITNESSES. All they really wanted was the headlines. 

 

Nobody says a word about votes being “partisan” as long as the vote goes the way the left wants. 

[mogandave]

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.

 

 

 

 

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

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.

 

 

 

 

He had booked a spot on cnn to announce the investigation but it was cancelled after the wb complaint went public then trump released the aid.

 

Yes i got it. But you dont.

[mogandave]

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. 
 

[mogandave]

10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

He had booked a spot on cnn to announce the investigation but it was cancelled after the wb complaint went public then trump released the aid.

 

Yes i got it. But you dont.

According to CNN 

[mogandave]

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.

[Eric Loh]

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. 

[heybruce]

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.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, sucit said:

You mean for rich people?

 

 No, I mean for most everyone (except the left) 

 

1 hour ago, sucit said:

"By most every measure". That is absolutely ridiculous. He has brought income inequality the the highest in history! This is what people actually care about by the way.

 

Only the left cares about income inequality, and then only in as much as they can exploit it. 

 

1 hour ago, sucit said:

After his tax cuts the deficit skyrocketed. Hmm, I wonder why that would be. Oh, because taxpayers will need to pay what those tax cuts should have been paying in the first place.

 

Yes, all the sudden the left is concerned about the deficit. 
 

What have any of the leftists running for President suggested they would do to reduce the deficit? 

 

1 hour ago, sucit said:

Basically, the policies you support are just theft: money from poor people's pockets into rich people's pockets. 

 

No. You (again) have to resort to making things up. 
 

Why not provide an example? 

 

1 hour ago, sucit said:

So yeah, if you own a ton of stock or are the owner of Facebook, the country is much better now. If you are anyone else, not so much. You have just been tricked into believing their propaganda.

 

The “owner” of Facebook is a leftist, why would o believe him? 
 

It always amuses me how much smarter the left thinks they are than the non-left. Particularly since they ruin everything they touch.

 

1 hour ago, sucit said:

The income disparity statistics don't lie. 

No, but the leftists that use it to generate animosity do often lie. 
 

The left makes something up, calls it a fact and then calls you a fool when you don’t agree with it. 

[papa al]

Is Hillary in jail yet.?  No??

....wake me when dat..

????

[sirineou]

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.

[Sujo]

36 minutes ago, mogandave said:

According to CNN 

Of course. Why wouldnt they know who they booked. Do you have anything to say otherwise?

 

Trump supporters dont understand truth and facts.

[mogandave]

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. 
 

 

[JHolmesJr]

5 minutes ago, papa al said:

Is Hillary in jail yet.?  No??

....wake me when dat..

????

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

candidates can make it.

[Sujo]

What a piece of garbage is rand paul.

 

He forwarded a question but supreme court justice roberts refused to read it because it named the whistleblower.

 

So rand paul walks out and names him. The guy has had death threats. Now he will get more. Rand paul better hope nothing happens to him.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

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

candidates can make it.

How where the mid terms.

[mogandave]

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. 

[Eric Loh]

17 minutes ago, papa al said:

Is Hillary in jail yet.?  No??

....wake me when dat..

????

Were you awake when Trump was impeached. 

[Sujo]

Marco Rubio. Moron of the year award. Wow.

 

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office. ...

"... I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation."

[mlmcleod]

The entire "trial" was a farce.  Political partisanship outweighs good citizenship again.  The Republicans and Trump will pay heavily in November!

[JHolmesJr]

35 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Were you awake when Trump was impeached. 

Will you be when he is acquitted (FOREVER)?

[candide]

An obvious cover up!

[Eric Loh]

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. 

[puck2]

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.

 

 

 

 

[Sujo]

30 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Will you be when he is acquitted (FOREVER)?

Still impeached. Nixon clinton trump. 3 amigos.

[earlinclaifornia]

Vote here trump landslide or blue wave in November

[Jingthing]

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. 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Vote here trump landslide or blue wave in November

Neither.

45 landslide impossible. 

If he wins it will definitely be with a minority of votes again. 

Can't do more when you're core base is about 40 percent and hardly changes. 

But I don't see a democratic landslide either.

That could be a problem as we now have a president that has basically been crowned total monarch above all laws by the senate. In other words, he can call it rigged, and stay, and who is going to stop him?