Dems demand for new evidence in the Senate trial is absurd

[jwoodie]

Whatever "evidence" of an impeachable offense should have been brought up before the House voted for impeachment. After that, it is up to the House "managers" to present that evidence at the Senate trial. Then the President is afforded an opportunity to present his defense.

The latest demand that Senate Democrats be afforded an opportunity to provide additional evidence at the trial not only flies in the face of any notion of jurisprudence, it is an acknowledgement that the House vote to impeach is based on insufficient evidence.

Does anyone (other than committed Trump haters) give any credence to this absurd farce?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why didn’t the house call the witnesses they want the Senate to call?

Why didn’t the house let the COURTS decide if the WH had to cooperate with the house’s request for witnesses?

Such a shit show.

 

[sartre play]

My understanding is that those working for the administration who had information that could have helped, refused to testify.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They believe if they stir up the base enough, all the whining will force McConnell to give them what they want.

 

[Rambunctious]

The dems didn't have enough evidence to impeach and now realize what the history books will say....and it will hurt their brand going forward...something they should have thought about before they under took this hoax and coup.....

 

[Nostra]

Why didn’t the house call the witnesses they want the Senate to call?

Why didn’t the house let the COURTS decide if the WH had to cooperate with the house’s request for witnesses?

Such a shit show.

Because Trump is an imminent threat to our Democracy and national security..................so now Nazi Pelousy is on vacation and failed to complete the House's part of impeachment.

Morons.

 

[toobfreak]

Whatever "evidence" of an impeachable offense should have been brought up before the House voted for impeachment. After that, it is up to the House "managers" to present that evidence at the Senate trial. Then the President is afforded an opportunity to present his defense.

The latest demand that Senate Democrats be afforded an opportunity to provide additional evidence at the trial not only flies in the face of any notion of jurisprudence, it is an acknowledgement that the House vote to impeach is based on insufficient evidence.

Does anyone (other than committed Trump haters) give any credence to this absurd farce?

Since the House Democrats have already by their very actions determined that they had impeachable grounds against Trump, then the only task upon the Senate is to judge THAT case upon the evidence contained therein that they themselves said was grounds for impeachment.

REMEMBER: In trying the Senate hearings, not only is Trump to be judged by the evidence presented by the House, but the HOUSE itself will be judged by its case.

 

[DGS49]

The Plan is becoming clear now, but Madam Pelosi may have to deviate since "everyone" is on to them.

They were hoping to force additional witnesses in the Senate, in the hope that the witnesses will mention other possible misconduct by President Trump that could justify additional "Impeachment Inquiries," and a whole new wave of this foolishness in the House.

One fundamental disconnect is the difference of opinion on to what extent Congress has the "Constitutional right" to examine the confidential workings of the President's inner circle. The White House believes it is fully justified in refusing to grant congressional or public access to this information, while the Democrats in Congress believe that Congress has a virtually unlimited right to question cabinet members, the President's attorneys, and other core officials about their activities and discussions with the President.

Hopefully, the question will ultimately be referred to the USSC for final resolution. But I think the Democrats don't want to take it that far, because they know they will lose.

 

[Meister]

My understanding is that those working for the administration who had information that could have helped, refused to testify.

That's why the dems should have slowed their train wreck and used the courts to force the issue.

 

[Billiejeens]

My understanding is that those working for the administration who had information that could have helped, refused to testify.

Do you understand how that works?

And, if they didnt testify in the house, why would they testify in the senate?

 

[ColonelAngus]

My understanding is that those working for the administration who had information that could have helped, refused to testify.

And they could have been compelled to testify by the courts if the Dimms had let the process play out.