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

[Crazy Alex]

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

 

Dishonest headline. It is the job of the House to call witnesses and make the case. The House called their witnesses and handed the case over to the Senate. An honest headline would have read, "US Senate votes against calling additional witnesses...."

 

The article, as with most leftist news sources, operates on the premise that the impeachment and removal process is the same as with US trial procedures in general. The premise is false.

 

Furthermore, rumors of a book excerpt aren't grounds to delay a trial- especially given what Bolton is already on record as saying about the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

 

The Senate proceedings have been every bit as fair as those in the House.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Crazy Alex

[MaxYakov]

If the articles look like Schiff, you must acquit!

[Saint Nick]

On 2/1/2020 at 10:00 AM, AussieBob18 said:

Dear Democrat supporters and anti-Trump posters.  Please accept the outcome of the 2020 election, but more importantly, please accept that you are wrong when Trump is re-elected.  Now you may still keep your political bias and hatred for Trump 9and us his supporters), but it is the People who decide the political direction of USA and they will vote in November on exactly that.  The People are always right - whether they vote the way you want or not - the People decide.  For my part I will accept that I was wrong in my opinions that Trump is the greatest POTUS since Reagan, because if Trump is not re-elected then my opinions are not what the People decided and the People are always right - whether you like what they decide or not. Will you all do the same please - accept the will and decision of the People.  Whether you agree that Trump is the greates POTUS since Reagan is not the issue - the issue is whether you agree that Trump is the POTUS as decided by the People. Remember - we all suffered (mainly silently) through the 8 years of Obama - but we accepted the People's decision. 

 

"...mainly silent..."

Yeah...right!

 

[Saint Nick]

At least now, please stop all the BS about "the greatest democracy on Earth"!

 

[Rimmer]

Some off topic troll posts and replies removed

[observer90210]

Why all the fuss and expenditure of tax money with waste of time ? Show me one single place in the world that has a decent, honest politician with integrity....

[jany123]

9 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

Why all the fuss and expenditure of tax money with waste of time ? Show me one single place in the world that has a decent, honest politician with integrity....

That it’s hard to find an honest politician, is one of the reasons that governmental oversight is so important. The dems running oversight committees are doing the job that they are paid too do. They have budget allocations to do this.... and they did not need to impinge on the constitution to do it

 

Instead show me one single country in the world that does not have oversight

[observer90210]

5 minutes ago, jany123 said:

That it’s hard to find an honest politician, is one of the reasons that governmental oversight is so important. The dems running oversight committees are doing the job that they are paid too do. They have budget allocations to do this.... and they did not need to impinge on the constitution to do it

 

Instead show me one single country in the world that does not have oversight

all depends on what you mean by governmental insight ? if you mean bureaucrats well...if they are members or sympatisants of the rival political party (and many are politically engaged when they attain top level bureaucratic posts) , the issue is biased. and if you refer to a parliament, it's members are politicians so we are back to the starting point.

[RideJocky]

13 minutes ago, jany123 said:

That it’s hard to find an honest politician, is one of the reasons that governmental oversight is so important. The dems running oversight committees are doing the job that they are paid too do. They have budget allocations to do this.... and they did not need to impinge on the constitution to do it

 

Instead show me one single country in the world that does not have oversight

The House responsibility include oversight of ALL government, yet there seems to be only one person in three years they have any interest in “overseeing”. 
 

The idea that this is about the House doing it’s “Constitutional Duty” is laughable. They could give a “whit” less about the Constitution. 
 

 

[jany123]

11 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

all depends on what you mean by governmental insight ? if you mean bureaucrats well...if they are members or sympatisants of the rival political party (and many are politically engaged when they attain top level bureaucratic posts) , the issue is biased. and if you refer to a parliament, it's members are politicians so we are back to the starting point.

For what I “mean” by governmental oversight... google “governmental oversight”

 

all that stuff you deferred too is perhaps stuff that should be investigated by governmental oversight, don’t you think?

 

as a starting point, you raise issue of oaths taken and broken. Addressing these issues might see the US political system move up in the rankings, perhaps progressing beyond the current designation of a flawed democracy, to that of a true democracy, thereby perhaps MAG.... wouldn’t that be nice?

[Sujo]

21 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

The House responsibility include oversight of ALL government, yet there seems to be only one person in three years they have any interest in “overseeing”. 
 

The idea that this is about the House doing it’s “Constitutional Duty” is laughable. They could give a “whit” less about the Constitution. 
 

 

Well when a complaint comes in it is their constitutional duty to investigate.

 

If repubs in 3 years didnt even bother with biden until he was an opopnent should indicate something to you, though i doubt it.

[jany123]

29 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

The House responsibility include oversight of ALL government, yet there seems to be only one person in three years they have any interest in “overseeing”. 
 

The idea that this is about the House doing it’s “Constitutional Duty” is laughable. They could give a “whit” less about the Constitution. 
 

 

Or... oversight is continual and all encompassing, but the only committee experiencing obstruction or other issues of note, such as abuse of powers, is the committee tasked with investigating that one person you mention... ergo it’s the committee at the forefront

 

of course, if you know that the committee in charge of agricultural oversight, for example, is not doing its job, then share that info.... or the committee with oversight of education... or the committee with oversight of (please... add your failing committee here)

Edited February 4, 2020 by jany123

[Ricohoc]

2 hours ago, RideJocky said:

The House responsibility include oversight of ALL government, yet there seems to be only one person in three years they have any interest in “overseeing”. 
 

The idea that this is about the House doing it’s “Constitutional Duty” is laughable. They could give a “whit” less about the Constitution. 
 

 

Yes. Agree.  But that's why the courts keep shutting down the House's warped view of oversight.

 

The House's oversight is limited to departments.  They have no oversight role over the POTUS individually. There are checks and balances and a separation of powers between the three co-equal branches of government, but that's not the same "oversight" that the House keeps trying to claim.

 

It was for that reason -- so far -- that the courts have prevented the IRS from releasing Trump's tax returns to the House.  The actual oversight has to do with reviewing IRS policies and procedures in dealing with their daily activities -- not using oversight power to comb through any particular person's tax returns in search of a crime.  

 

If such an abuse of power were to be allowed, it would mean that ANY citizen could be the subject of a Stalinesque investigation by the House in search of a crime.

[Opl]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Yeah because not knowing the stadium is a stone's throw over the line is also by itself an impeachable offense. Schiff is drafting the article now. Obviously people in Kansas don't cheer for the Chiefs. He once also didn't know there was some random text input on his phone and tweeted it out.

 

This is certainly another covfefe moment. You want to see real blunders look at the dems in Iowa. And speaking of guys that don't know which state he is in look no further than Biden.

Nothing to worry about, " The video was included in an Instagram story by a real estate agent for a Russian-American firm who frequents Mar-a-Lago and other Trump properties and events"

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article239913588.html#storylink=cpy"

[metisdead]

Several posts and replies not related to "U.S. Senate votes against calling witnesses in Trump impeachment trial, clearing way for acquittal" have been removed as being off topic. 

[candide]

5 hours ago, Opl said:

Nothing to worry about, " The video was included in an Instagram story by a real estate agent for a Russian-American firm who frequents Mar-a-Lago and other Trump properties and events"

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article239913588.html#storylink=cpy"

A dignified President, as usual, lol!