Why didn't House Democrats follow normal protocol to call impeachment witnesses?

[Oldstyle]

when did he do that? he was looking at a video from Biden where he blackmailed a PM of Ukraine with our money. tell me how that's influencing 2020? And if the Ukraine government handed back laundered money.

There is no video of Biden blackmailing anyone on behalf of his son, much less coercing the Ukraine investigating his political rivals like ol'Trumpybear did. Where do you guys come up with this shit?

Enjoy the corruption. It makes Putinbear smile.

sure there is, you must have missed the hundred or so postings of that video. you should go listen to it.

Nowhere does he ever mention his son in that video, nor is the Ukrainian PM, whom you claim Good old Joe is blackmailing. How can that be a video of Joe blackmailing him when he's not even there? We know Trumpybear mentioned the DNC server/Crowdstrke and the Bidens, specifically in that phone call. But not once was the word corruption used.

When Joe was bragging on stage in front of the media (not a very bright boy our Joe!) who do you think he was referring to if not the government of the Ukraine and specifically the President? He was referencing something that took place at an earlier time...bragging about how he strong armed the Ukrainian President! Gee, Boo...do you think the Ukrainian President felt "pressured" by Biden's threat? THAT my liberal friend...is blackmail!!!

So it's not a video of Joe blackmailing anyone on behalf of his son, just Joe bragging about how he implemented Obama's foreign policy.

Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Bidens, and Ukraine (updated)

Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt excoriates officials in the Prosecutor General’s Office for stymying anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma

Pyatt’s speech was part of a regular drumbeat by U.S. and other Western leaders, including Vice President Biden, and a swath of Ukrainian civil society seeking to pressure President Poroshenko to force his officials, especially in the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to crack down more, not less, on corruption.

While giving Shokin a last chance to shape up (Pyatt says, “We want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin so the PGO is leading the fight against corruption.”), the ambassador criticizes “officials at the PGO’s office” for not providing documents that were needed for the British investigation of Burisma owner Zlochevskiy and effectively allowing Zlochevskiy to transfer $23 million of what Pyatt says were Ukrainian taxpayer assets to Cyprus.

Oct. 8, 2015 – U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland continues the drumbeat on the need for stepped-up anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in testimony that “the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.” She continues, “That means it must investigate and successfully prosecute corruption and asset recovery cases, including locking up dirty personnel in the PGO itself.”

Fall 2015 – Biden, along with the EU, publicly calls for ouster of Prosecutor General Shokin for failure to work on anti-corruption efforts.

John E. Herbst, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, later testified before Congress:

“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv.”

Dec. 8, 2015 – Vice President Biden makes a speech to Ukraine’s Parliament urging the country to step up anti-corruption measures.

No, it's a video of Joe gloating about what a "tough guy" he is when it comes to politics, Boo! That's not a "we" speech...that's a "me" speech!

 

[jc456]

in the Biden video

Joe was carrying out Obama's foreign policy. Which not only had the support of the EU and the IMF but lso Republican support as well. It as not done to hamstring the opposition party. Trumpybears was.

Link to this policy? Why hasn't Obama come forward to say Quid Pro Joe was blackmailing the Ukraine on his behalf?

Subscribe to read | Financial Times


"European and US officials pressed Ukraine to sack Viktor Shokin, the country’s former prosecutor-general, months before Joe Biden, the former US vice-president, personally intervened to force his removal, people involved in the talks said. Mr Biden did not act unilaterally nor did he instigate the push against Mr Shokin, despite suggestions to the contrary by supporters of US president Donald Trump, people familiar with the matter said. The circumstances of Mr Shokin’s sacking, which took effect in March 2016, have become a flashpoint in the impeachment saga enveloping US president Donald Trump.

I didn't ask for some anonymous source who is trying to cover Quid Pro Joe's ass after his extortion plot was exposed. I want the stated policy prior to his extortion plot, moron.

Go get it.

they want all of trump's documents and say fk off for joe's too fking funny. what was that about innocent people? They can't even observe their own whackiness.

 

[jc456]

There is no video of Biden blackmailing anyone on behalf of his son, much less coercing the Ukraine investigating his political rivals like ol'Trumpybear did. Where do you guys come up with this shit?

Enjoy the corruption. It makes Putinbear smile.

sure there is, you must have missed the hundred or so postings of that video. you should go listen to it.

Nowhere does he ever mention his son in that video, nor is the Ukrainian PM, whom you claim Good old Joe is blackmailing. How can that be a video of Joe blackmailing him when he's not even there? We know Trumpybear mentioned the DNC server/Crowdstrke and the Bidens, specifically in that phone call. But not once was the word corruption used.

When Joe was bragging on stage in front of the media (not a very bright boy our Joe!) who do you think he was referring to if not the government of the Ukraine and specifically the President? He was referencing something that took place at an earlier time...bragging about how he strong armed the Ukrainian President! Gee, Boo...do you think the Ukrainian President felt "pressured" by Biden's threat? THAT my liberal friend...is blackmail!!!

So it's not a video of Joe blackmailing anyone on behalf of his son, just Joe bragging about how he implemented Obama's foreign policy.

Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Bidens, and Ukraine (updated)

Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt excoriates officials in the Prosecutor General’s Office for stymying anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma

Pyatt’s speech was part of a regular drumbeat by U.S. and other Western leaders, including Vice President Biden, and a swath of Ukrainian civil society seeking to pressure President Poroshenko to force his officials, especially in the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to crack down more, not less, on corruption.

While giving Shokin a last chance to shape up (Pyatt says, “We want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin so the PGO is leading the fight against corruption.”), the ambassador criticizes “officials at the PGO’s office” for not providing documents that were needed for the British investigation of Burisma owner Zlochevskiy and effectively allowing Zlochevskiy to transfer $23 million of what Pyatt says were Ukrainian taxpayer assets to Cyprus.

Oct. 8, 2015 – U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland continues the drumbeat on the need for stepped-up anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in testimony that “the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.” She continues, “That means it must investigate and successfully prosecute corruption and asset recovery cases, including locking up dirty personnel in the PGO itself.”

Fall 2015 – Biden, along with the EU, publicly calls for ouster of Prosecutor General Shokin for failure to work on anti-corruption efforts.

John E. Herbst, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, later testified before Congress:

“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv.”

Dec. 8, 2015 – Vice President Biden makes a speech to Ukraine’s Parliament urging the country to step up anti-corruption measures.

No, it's a video of Joe gloating about what a "tough guy" he is when it comes to politics, Boo! That's not a "we" speech...that's a "me" speech!

no mention of anyone else.

 

[BlindBoo]

So People getting bribes and kickbacks and helping to launder Obama State Department funds

Is this from Rudy's unbelievable net portfolio?

Oh, so it's OK for Democrats to "weaponize" the IRS, the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA.

After 6 year of endlessly investigating every leaf that fell under Obama, they found no evidence of any of that. Obama even deferred to McConnell's objection to announcing that Russia was trying to interfere.

but it's not OK for Trump to simply ask that a Democrat's apparent corruption be exposed?

You mean Blackmailing a foreign leader to publicly announce that his country was investigation Trump's main rival, and the DNC Server hack being done by Ukraine to favor Hillary. Yeah, that's just not okay. That corrupt.

Yet the foreign leader in question has repeatedly stated that he didn't feel pressured? How do you explain that? Trump asked what he did as a favor. You on the left have attempted to make it "blackmail" or "extortion" because you were trying to make it an impeachable offense!

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

Did the investigations take place? Not so much. So that means that the Ukraine didn't get it's aid correct? Oh wait...you mean they DID get that aid? Wait...you mean to tell me that unlike the Obama Administration...that sent them non lethal aid...the Trump Administration sent them a missile system to help protect them against the Russians? How can that BE, Boo?

Of course. once it became known what Trumpybear was up to, the illegally withheld funds were released.

Let me guess, next you're gonna claim because he said to Sondland "No Quid Pro Quo", he didn't want nothing, nothing happened and there was no quid pro quo.

 

[The Original Tree]

So People getting bribes and kickbacks and helping to launder Obama State Department funds

Is this from Rudy's unbelievable net portfolio?

Oh, so it's OK for Democrats to "weaponize" the IRS, the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA.

After 6 year of endlessly investigating every leaf that fell under Obama, they found no evidence of any of that. Obama even deferred to McConnell's objection to announcing that Russia was trying to interfere.

but it's not OK for Trump to simply ask that a Democrat's apparent corruption be exposed?

You mean Blackmailing a foreign leader to publicly announce that his country was investigation Trump's main rival, and the DNC Server hack being done by Ukraine to favor Hillary. Yeah, that's just not okay. That corrupt.

Yet the foreign leader in question has repeatedly stated that he didn't feel pressured? How do you explain that? Trump asked what he did as a favor. You on the left have attempted to make it "blackmail" or "extortion" because you were trying to make it an impeachable offense!

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

Did the investigations take place? Not so much. So that means that the Ukraine didn't get it's aid correct? Oh wait...you mean they DID get that aid? Wait...you mean to tell me that unlike the Obama Administration...that sent them non lethal aid...the Trump Administration sent them a missile system to help protect them against the Russians? How can that BE, Boo?

Of course. once it became known what Trumpybear was up to, the illegally withheld funds were released.

Let me guess, next you're gonna claim because he said to Sondland "No Quid Pro Quo", he didn't want nothing, nothing happened and there was no quid pro quo.

It's from the book of deeds that say you are a pathological liar bound for Hell unless you change your evil ways.

 

[BlindBoo]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

We know what trump did too thanks to the transcript

and it was not an impeachable offense

Yep he was coercing a foreign leader into influencing our next election. Embrace the corruption of using bipartisan foreign aid against your domestic political opponents. Enjoy!

when did he do that? he was looking at a video from Biden where he blackmailed a PM of Ukraine with our money. tell me how that's influencing 2020? And if the Ukraine government handed back laundered money.

There is no video of Biden blackmailing anyone on behalf of his son, much less coercing the Ukraine investigating his political rivals like ol'Trumpybear did. Where do you guys come up with this shit?

Enjoy the corruption. It makes Putinbear smile.

Biden bragged about pressuring the Ukraines by withholding money

OMG the horror!

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

 

[Nostra]

We know what trump did too thanks to the transcript

and it was not an impeachable offense

Yep he was coercing a foreign leader into influencing our next election. Embrace the corruption of using bipartisan foreign aid against your domestic political opponents. Enjoy!

when did he do that? he was looking at a video from Biden where he blackmailed a PM of Ukraine with our money. tell me how that's influencing 2020? And if the Ukraine government handed back laundered money.

There is no video of Biden blackmailing anyone on behalf of his son, much less coercing the Ukraine investigating his political rivals like ol'Trumpybear did. Where do you guys come up with this shit?

Enjoy the corruption. It makes Putinbear smile.

Biden bragged about pressuring the Ukraines by withholding money

OMG the horror!

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

More leftist spin after the fact to try to protect Quid Pro Joe's extortion scheme.

 

[jc456]

We know what trump did too thanks to the transcript

and it was not an impeachable offense

Yep he was coercing a foreign leader into influencing our next election. Embrace the corruption of using bipartisan foreign aid against your domestic political opponents. Enjoy!

when did he do that? he was looking at a video from Biden where he blackmailed a PM of Ukraine with our money. tell me how that's influencing 2020? And if the Ukraine government handed back laundered money.

There is no video of Biden blackmailing anyone on behalf of his son, much less coercing the Ukraine investigating his political rivals like ol'Trumpybear did. Where do you guys come up with this shit?

Enjoy the corruption. It makes Putinbear smile.

Biden bragged about pressuring the Ukraines by withholding money

OMG the horror!

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

from your own fking link..

But it's not unusual for Ukrainian companies to bring on high-profile people from the West in an effort to burnish their image and gain influence, Pifer said.

money for name. can't make it up!!! there you go.

 

[BlindBoo]

So People getting bribes and kickbacks and helping to launder Obama State Department funds

Is this from Rudy's unbelievable net portfolio?

After 6 year of endlessly investigating every leaf that fell under Obama, they found no evidence of any of that. Obama even deferred to McConnell's objection to announcing that Russia was trying to interfere.

You mean Blackmailing a foreign leader to publicly announce that his country was investigation Trump's main rival, and the DNC Server hack being done by Ukraine to favor Hillary. Yeah, that's just not okay. That corrupt.

Yet the foreign leader in question has repeatedly stated that he didn't feel pressured? How do you explain that? Trump asked what he did as a favor. You on the left have attempted to make it "blackmail" or "extortion" because you were trying to make it an impeachable offense!

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

Did the investigations take place? Not so much. So that means that the Ukraine didn't get it's aid correct? Oh wait...you mean they DID get that aid? Wait...you mean to tell me that unlike the Obama Administration...that sent them non lethal aid...the Trump Administration sent them a missile system to help protect them against the Russians? How can that BE, Boo?

Of course. once it became known what Trumpybear was up to, the illegally withheld funds were released.

Let me guess, next you're gonna claim because he said to Sondland "No Quid Pro Quo", he didn't want nothing, nothing happened and there was no quid pro quo.

It's from the book of deeds that say you are a pathological liar bound for Hell unless you change your evil ways.

Hahaha I love you guys. You make me laugh.

 

[The Original Tree]

So People getting bribes and kickbacks and helping to launder Obama State Department funds

Is this from Rudy's unbelievable net portfolio?

Yet the foreign leader in question has repeatedly stated that he didn't feel pressured? How do you explain that? Trump asked what he did as a favor. You on the left have attempted to make it "blackmail" or "extortion" because you were trying to make it an impeachable offense!

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

Did the investigations take place? Not so much. So that means that the Ukraine didn't get it's aid correct? Oh wait...you mean they DID get that aid? Wait...you mean to tell me that unlike the Obama Administration...that sent them non lethal aid...the Trump Administration sent them a missile system to help protect them against the Russians? How can that BE, Boo?

Of course. once it became known what Trumpybear was up to, the illegally withheld funds were released.

Let me guess, next you're gonna claim because he said to Sondland "No Quid Pro Quo", he didn't want nothing, nothing happened and there was no quid pro quo.

It's from the book of deeds that say you are a pathological liar bound for Hell unless you change your evil ways.

Hahaha I love you guys. You make me laugh.

You have fleas

 

[BlindBoo]

Yep he was coercing a foreign leader into influencing our next election. Embrace the corruption of using bipartisan foreign aid against your domestic political opponents. Enjoy!

when did he do that? he was looking at a video from Biden where he blackmailed a PM of Ukraine with our money. tell me how that's influencing 2020? And if the Ukraine government handed back laundered money.

There is no video of Biden blackmailing anyone on behalf of his son, much less coercing the Ukraine investigating his political rivals like ol'Trumpybear did. Where do you guys come up with this shit?

Enjoy the corruption. It makes Putinbear smile.

Biden bragged about pressuring the Ukraines by withholding money

OMG the horror!

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

from your own fking link..

But it's not unusual for Ukrainian companies to bring on high-profile people from the West in an effort to burnish their image and gain influence, Pifer said.

money for name. can't make it up!!! there you go.

So it's a common practice in Ukraine. That is there is no law preventing companies from hiring high profile people. Likewise, no law in the US prevents the offspring of any politician from benefiting from their names by taking a position offered unless some evidence says otherwise. Has the Trumpyubear offer any evidence for this type of corruption involving the Bidens?

 

[BlindBoo]

So People getting bribes and kickbacks and helping to launder Obama State Department funds

Is this from Rudy's unbelievable net portfolio?

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

Did the investigations take place? Not so much. So that means that the Ukraine didn't get it's aid correct? Oh wait...you mean they DID get that aid? Wait...you mean to tell me that unlike the Obama Administration...that sent them non lethal aid...the Trump Administration sent them a missile system to help protect them against the Russians? How can that BE, Boo?

Of course. once it became known what Trumpybear was up to, the illegally withheld funds were released.

Let me guess, next you're gonna claim because he said to Sondland "No Quid Pro Quo", he didn't want nothing, nothing happened and there was no quid pro quo.

It's from the book of deeds that say you are a pathological liar bound for Hell unless you change your evil ways.

Hahaha I love you guys. You make me laugh.

You have fleas

You're a flea!

 

[BlindBoo]

in the Biden video

Joe was carrying out Obama's foreign policy. Which not only had the support of the EU and the IMF but lso Republican support as well. It as not done to hamstring the opposition party. Trumpybears was.

With all due respect, Boo...why would Obama NEED to use foreign policy to "hamstring" the opposition party? He was already doing that with the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the FISA Court and the Main Stream Media!

At least in your mind huh?

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh, so it's OK for Democrats to "weaponize" the IRS, the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA.

After 6 year of endlessly investigating every leaf that fell under Obama, they found no evidence of any of that. Obama even deferred to McConnell's objection to announcing that Russia was trying to interfere.

but it's not OK for Trump to simply ask that a Democrat's apparent corruption be exposed?

You mean Blackmailing a foreign leader to publicly announce that his country was investigation Trump's main rival, and the DNC Server hack being done by Ukraine to favor Hillary. Yeah, that's just not okay. That corrupt.

Yet the foreign leader in question has repeatedly stated that he didn't feel pressured? How do you explain that? Trump asked what he did as a favor. You on the left have attempted to make it "blackmail" or "extortion" because you were trying to make it an impeachable offense!

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

When did he publicly announce it? Link?

He didn't have to. Trumpybear got busted and the aid, which was being illegally withheld, was finally released.

I bet that pissed him off too. "I'm the President damn it, I should be able to do what I want!"

 

[Nostra]

Oh, so it's OK for Democrats to "weaponize" the IRS, the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA.

After 6 year of endlessly investigating every leaf that fell under Obama, they found no evidence of any of that. Obama even deferred to McConnell's objection to announcing that Russia was trying to interfere.

but it's not OK for Trump to simply ask that a Democrat's apparent corruption be exposed?

You mean Blackmailing a foreign leader to publicly announce that his country was investigation Trump's main rival, and the DNC Server hack being done by Ukraine to favor Hillary. Yeah, that's just not okay. That corrupt.

Yet the foreign leader in question has repeatedly stated that he didn't feel pressured? How do you explain that? Trump asked what he did as a favor. You on the left have attempted to make it "blackmail" or "extortion" because you were trying to make it an impeachable offense!

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

When did he publicly announce it? Link?

He didn't have to. Trumpybear got busted and the aid, which was being illegally withheld, was finally released.

I bet that pissed him off too. "I'm the President damn it, I should be able to do what I want!"

He didn't have to.

Hahahahahahahaha! Your lies are too easy to expose.

 

[jc456]

Oh, so it's OK for Democrats to "weaponize" the IRS, the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA.

After 6 year of endlessly investigating every leaf that fell under Obama, they found no evidence of any of that. Obama even deferred to McConnell's objection to announcing that Russia was trying to interfere.

but it's not OK for Trump to simply ask that a Democrat's apparent corruption be exposed?

You mean Blackmailing a foreign leader to publicly announce that his country was investigation Trump's main rival, and the DNC Server hack being done by Ukraine to favor Hillary. Yeah, that's just not okay. That corrupt.

Yet the foreign leader in question has repeatedly stated that he didn't feel pressured? How do you explain that? Trump asked what he did as a favor. You on the left have attempted to make it "blackmail" or "extortion" because you were trying to make it an impeachable offense!

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

When did he publicly announce it? Link?

He didn't have to. Trumpybear got busted and the aid, which was being illegally withheld, was finally released.

I bet that pissed him off too. "I'm the President damn it, I should be able to do what I want!"

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

 

[jc456]

when did he do that? he was looking at a video from Biden where he blackmailed a PM of Ukraine with our money. tell me how that's influencing 2020? And if the Ukraine government handed back laundered money.

There is no video of Biden blackmailing anyone on behalf of his son, much less coercing the Ukraine investigating his political rivals like ol'Trumpybear did. Where do you guys come up with this shit?

Enjoy the corruption. It makes Putinbear smile.

Biden bragged about pressuring the Ukraines by withholding money

OMG the horror!

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

from your own fking link..

But it's not unusual for Ukrainian companies to bring on high-profile people from the West in an effort to burnish their image and gain influence, Pifer said.

money for name. can't make it up!!! there you go.

So it's a common practice in Ukraine. That is there is no law preventing companies from hiring high profile people. Likewise, no law in the US prevents the offspring of any politician from benefiting from their names by taking a position offered unless some evidence says otherwise. Has the Trumpyubear offer any evidence for this type of corruption involving the Bidens?

VP son. Sorry son that’s a conflict of interest in our country! Excuse me. That’s illegal

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

Uh...did you answer the question in the OP ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

They don't really want wittiness's they want the GOP to say no to them so they can call the senate corrupt....

again, if I'm a senator, I merely point to the fact that two articles were walked over after a vote. having had witnesses testify to them and voted on. Anything more than that is against the job of the senate. either, the articles were legit or not. Can't have further witnesses. If they need more witnesses, then they are not legitimate and should be dismissed. Hand them back and tell the schitts and pelosers to go get the witnesses they need and see you back. The failure is therefore at the hands of schitt's and peloser.

for fk sake, can't there be at least one mthr fking congressional person who knows our constitution?

What a bizarre concept of yours.

In a court of law, the prosecutor does not stop investigating the defendant once he has filed charges, he continues to search and find more New relevant evidence all the way to and thru, the trial.

After all, the truth is what everyone is in search for, in any criminal or civil trial. What if new evidence was found by the defence lawyers in a case, was found during the trial that would help exonerate a Defendant? Could they not present it because the trial already started?

And what new evidence was that ?

John Bolton ?

Asserting what had already been asserted. He had no more weight than anyone else.

So please keep dreaming.

This was all an interpretation by the left to their benefit.

They then ran a Schitt-stained hearing that should have lasted longer (and allowed the GOP to question witnesses as much as they wanted).

Even Johnathan Turley indicated it was the house that was abusing power (but you knew that).

 

[Care4all]

They don't really want wittiness's they want the GOP to say no to them so they can call the senate corrupt....

again, if I'm a senator, I merely point to the fact that two articles were walked over after a vote. having had witnesses testify to them and voted on. Anything more than that is against the job of the senate. either, the articles were legit or not. Can't have further witnesses. If they need more witnesses, then they are not legitimate and should be dismissed. Hand them back and tell the schitts and pelosers to go get the witnesses they need and see you back. The failure is therefore at the hands of schitt's and peloser.

for fk sake, can't there be at least one mthr fking congressional person who knows our constitution?

What a bizarre concept of yours.

In a court of law, the prosecutor does not stop investigating the defendant once he has filed charges, he continues to search and find more New relevant evidence all the way to and thru, the trial.

After all, the truth is what everyone is in search for, in any criminal or civil trial. What if new evidence was found by the defence lawyers in a case, was found during the trial that would help exonerate a Defendant? Could they not present it because the trial already started?

And what new evidence was that ?

John Bolton ?

Asserting what had already been asserted. He had no more weight than anyone else.

So please keep dreaming.

This was all an interpretation by the left to their benefit.

They then ran a Schitt-stained hearing that should have lasted longer (and allowed the GOP to question witnesses as much as they wanted).

Even Johnathan Turley indicated it was the house that was abusing power (but you knew that).

the new evidence that came out from the emails the gvt had to release due to some non heard of non profit's FOIA Law suit for them... near all the emails and documents subpoenaed by the House were requested by this group and another non profit judicial watch like group in a freedom of information act request.... THEY GOT THEM... while the whitehouse refused to even acknowledge the House request.... well, the Friday after impeachment they got their first batch and a new additional batch released every two weeks of the docs requested.... it is still going on, another non profit had to sue to get the heavy redactions removed, and the court ruled in their favor too.... lots of evidence and revelations in there...

And all the Lev Parnas videos and emails that the Court ruled in a suit that the SDNY who is prosecuting him for campaign finance laws broken and had possession of them and refused initially to release them back to him, so he could give them to Congress as evidence, was won by him in court, so those were released given to the House Committees... lots and lots of stuff that filled in a lot of loose ends with Rudy and the administration and the Ukraine govt connections, with emails and video to back the alleged felon up...on his wild claims..... ( he would not be believed, without the physical evidence...)

------------------------------------------------------
i disagree with Turley... not completely, but in part....

I was reading today in an article, that the reason the founders left things so open for Congress and the Senate to determine each impeachment individually, was because each impeachment could be drastically different, though the charges may be the same... I can't explain it well, but the article was very informative and I found myself reading every word of it, as lengthy as it was.... I think it makes sense and you likely would think the same if you read it....here is just a small part of it, there is so much more t the link! read it! please



Amid the grandstanding in the House of Representatives, one key point can sometimes get lost: While impeachment is certainly a political process, it is not a purely political one. The judgments that Congress makes throughout the process are substantially but not entirely constrained by legal standards set out in the Constitution.

If impeachment were a purely political process, Congress could legitimately impeach and remove a president from office for any reason or no reason at all. This would make impeachment akin to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, where the legislature can at any time remove its chosen prime minister—albeit with a heightened requirement for removal in the Senate. Conversely, if impeachment were a purely legal process, Congress’s sole function would be to determine the facts and apply the relevant legal standards to those facts to determine whether the president has committed an impeachable offense.

One way to understand how law and politics intersect throughout the impeachment process, therefore, is with this test: Imagine that a particular member of the House or the Senate believes that there is a “correct” legal answer to the question of whether, on the evidence before Congress, the president has committed an impeachable offense. Can they properly vote the other way? Can they vote, in other words, against the evidence? By applying this test to the different stages of the impeachment process, one can see which aspects of the decision to impeach a president are political in nature and which are legal.
Before examining each of the different scenarios, let’s consider the constitutional arguments on each side of the question. Even beyond the supermajority threshold for removal, the Constitution rather clearly rejects the view that impeachment is just a political vote of no confidence. The text consistently describes impeachment using legalistic language, empowering the Senate to “try” “Cases of Impeachment” and render a “Judgment” of “Conviction.” And the Framers famously rejected a proposal allowing the president’s removal for mere “maladministration,” substituting the more legalistic phrase high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The message is clear: Impeachment is an adjudicative process to determine whether the president has committed a certain kind of offense.

Frank O. Bowman III: The common misconception about ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

However, impeachment is clearly unlike other purely legal proceedings. Most significantly, it is conducted by Congress, a quintessentially political body. Grand and petit juries, which play analogous roles to the House and the Senate in ordinary criminal trials, are made up of private citizens who are not accountable to public opinion. An early draft of the Constitution placed the trial of impeachment in the Supreme Court. Most scholars today agree that impeachment cases cannot even be appealed to the Article III courts; the Senate’s judgment is absolutely final. It is not to be presumed that the Constitution would have committed impeachment to elected branches if the Framers had wanted the process uncontaminated by politics.

And although high Crimes and Misdemeanors seems to rule out a purely political process, it does not make evaluating whether presidential conduct warrants impeachment straightforward. Scholars generally agree that high Crimes and Misdemeanors does not simply mean ordinary criminal violations. Instead, it is at least largely concerned with abuse of power. And determining whether someone has abused their authority is not a straightforward legal judgment like whether a defendant has committed each element of a statutory crime. Nor is there a clear standard for which abuses of power are so grave that they require removal from office. As Alexander Hamilton noted in “Federalist No. 65,” impeachment “can never be tied down by such strict rules” as those in ordinary criminal trials. Even answering the legal questions of impeachment requires what he called an “awful discretion.”

Even Impeachment Has to Follow the Rules