You really don't want Biden to testify...

[yidnar]

Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.

The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.

None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.

Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.

I gave you the evidence. Sondlands testimony. plus the way this whole thing was conducted. See if I have direct evidence... usually the defense, that's you atm. Needs to find a way to counter it. Not acknowledging that I presented anything is not a defence that actually works in the real world.

You presented no clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself. Your argument was that since you can't think of any other reason why he asked for the investigation, that must have been the reason.

My argument was that nobody can give another explanation, At least not one that reaches the threshold reasonable. For this to be an appeal to ignorance my explanation should not be provable in this context beyond a reasonable doubt.Plus I have a witness.

Sure there is. There is an active DOJ investigation into origins of Robert Mueller's probe. That very well could link back to the Ukraine or Russia.

it may lead back to the Ukraine Russia and the scum in the DNC.

 

[yidnar]

That's the rub. Trump party members don't care about the facts of the case. They only care about if they have enough votes to protect him from facing the consequences of his actions. The majority in the Senate are now participating in Trump's crimes to protect him.

The House Democrats subpoenaed every person and every document they wanted to subpoena.

It's not the Senate's job to find an offense to conform with the Houses impeachment articles after the trial begins.

No, it's the senate's job to be the jury. I've never heard of any jury deciding what evidence the prosecution is allowed to present.

the evidence was presented ....the homosexual communist left solemnly walked it over to the senate remember.

 

[yidnar]

Because you then are going to have to ask some current republican senators to testify.

View attachment 303155

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
February 12, 2016 | Press Releases

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system. In the letter, Portman, Durbin, and Shaheen said they recognized the challenges facing the Ukrainian government two years after the Maidan brought positive change to Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to help President Poroshenko confront the duel threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine as well as entrenched corruption in the government and to create a transparent and democratic government. The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

“We recognize ‎that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies,” the senators wrote. “Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.”

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman

This press release is from the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman.

There was no Biden corruption. trump knows this.

There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.

Like you idiot libs care about integrity, whatever you scum accuse Trump of your guys are ten times worse.

and every time they accuse him of something it winds up blowing up in their faces and making Trump more popular.

 

[yidnar]

Because you then are going to have to ask some current republican senators to testify.

View attachment 303155

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
February 12, 2016 | Press Releases

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system. In the letter, Portman, Durbin, and Shaheen said they recognized the challenges facing the Ukrainian government two years after the Maidan brought positive change to Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to help President Poroshenko confront the duel threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine as well as entrenched corruption in the government and to create a transparent and democratic government. The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

“We recognize ‎that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies,” the senators wrote. “Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.”

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman

This press release is from the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman.

There was no Biden corruption. trump knows this.

Wrong again.

Biden's family influence peddling business is a Biden and Democrat Priary problem.

The only reason other democrats aren't criticizing Bidens Money Laundering Operation is they all have family members they're going to place on various foreign corporate boards.

Thank Quid Pro Joe for blowing the lid off of the Stalinist democrats Money Laundering Operation

and thats the reason the establishment [swamp] hates Trump .

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's the rub. Trump party members don't care about the facts of the case. They only care about if they have enough votes to protect him from facing the consequences of his actions. The majority in the Senate are now participating in Trump's crimes to protect him.

The House Democrats subpoenaed every person and every document they wanted to subpoena.

It's not the Senate's job to find an offense to conform with the Houses impeachment articles after the trial begins.

No, it's the senate's job to be the jury. I've never heard of any jury deciding what evidence the prosecution is allowed to present.

Of course you have. The Senate always sets the rules for impeachment trials of a president.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's the rub. Trump party members don't care about the facts of the case. They only care about if they have enough votes to protect him from facing the consequences of his actions. The majority in the Senate are now participating in Trump's crimes to protect him.

The House Democrats subpoenaed every person and every document they wanted to subpoena.

It's not the Senate's job to find an offense to conform with the Houses impeachment articles after the trial begins.

No, it's the senate's job to be the jury. I've never heard of any jury deciding what evidence the prosecution is allowed to present.

Of course you have. The Senate always sets the rules for impeachment trials of a president.

Name an impeachment when witnesses beyond the original house witnesses were not called.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's the rub. Trump party members don't care about the facts of the case. They only care about if they have enough votes to protect him from facing the consequences of his actions. The majority in the Senate are now participating in Trump's crimes to protect him.

The House Democrats subpoenaed every person and every document they wanted to subpoena.

It's not the Senate's job to find an offense to conform with the Houses impeachment articles after the trial begins.

No, it's the senate's job to be the jury. I've never heard of any jury deciding what evidence the prosecution is allowed to present.

Of course you have. The Senate always sets the rules for impeachment trials of a president.

Name an impeachment when witnesses beyond the original house witnesses were not called.

Irrelevant, the Senate makes the rules for each impeachment trial.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's the rub. Trump party members don't care about the facts of the case. They only care about if they have enough votes to protect him from facing the consequences of his actions. The majority in the Senate are now participating in Trump's crimes to protect him.

The House Democrats subpoenaed every person and every document they wanted to subpoena.

It's not the Senate's job to find an offense to conform with the Houses impeachment articles after the trial begins.

No, it's the senate's job to be the jury. I've never heard of any jury deciding what evidence the prosecution is allowed to present.

Of course you have. The Senate always sets the rules for impeachment trials of a president.

Name an impeachment when witnesses beyond the original house witnesses were not called.

Irrelevant, the Senate makes the rules for each impeachment trial.

Your own senators want witnesses. If the right wanted it, you could stop further witnesses. You can't.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The House Democrats subpoenaed every person and every document they wanted to subpoena.

It's not the Senate's job to find an offense to conform with the Houses impeachment articles after the trial begins.

No, it's the senate's job to be the jury. I've never heard of any jury deciding what evidence the prosecution is allowed to present.

Of course you have. The Senate always sets the rules for impeachment trials of a president.

Name an impeachment when witnesses beyond the original house witnesses were not called.

Irrelevant, the Senate makes the rules for each impeachment trial.

Your own senators want witnesses. If the right wanted it, you could stop further witnesses. You can't.

Today's news is that the Republicans now have the votes to block witnesses.

It was clear to Senate Republicans on Wednesday after a morning meeting between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that the question of having additional witnesses is settled, and the Senate will vote Friday to wrap up the impeachment trial of President Trump.

GOP senators believe they have the votes to block witnesses

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Let’s call everyone to testify. Let’s start with the whistle blower. We can then put nads, schrumer, shitt, polosi, alfalfa, darla, peety, and the rest of the gang on the stand too. The dims are gonna cry no matter what. Let’s get ready to rumble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jc456]

The Senate Ukraine Caucus is a bipartisan[1] caucus of the United States Senate that was inaugurated on February 9, 2015 in Washington, D.C.. Its mission is "to strengthen the political, military, economic, and cultural relationship between the United States and Ukraine."

Its counterpart in the House of Representatives is the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, which was established in 1997 and consists of 41 representatives.

Members

Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rob Portman (R-OH) are the caucus' two Co-Chairs. Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Ron Johnson (R-WI) are the caucus' Vice-Chairs.[3]

The Senate Ukraine Caucus consists of 16 senators (9 Democrats and 7 Republicans):[4]

• John Barrasso (R-WY)
• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
• Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
• Bob Casey (D-PA)
• Ben Cardin (D-MD)

• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• Joni Ernst (R-IA)
• Ron Johnson (R-WI)
• Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
• James Inhofe (R-OK)
• Chris Murphy (D-CT)

• Gary Peters (D-MI)
• Rob Portman (R-OH)
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)
• Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)

Former members
After 2018 elections:

• Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) (lost reelection)
• Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) (lost reelection)

After 2016 elections:

• Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) (lost reelection)
• Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) (lost reelection)

Relevant legislation

• United States International Programming to Ukraine and Neighboring Regions (S.R. 2183),[5] introduced on March 27, 2014
• Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 (S.R. 2828),[6] introduced on September 16, 2014

Senate Ukraine Caucus - Wikipedia

The Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, or the CUC, is a bipartisan[1] caucus of the United States House of Representatives that was announced in June 1997 in Washington, D.C., nearly six years after Ukraine declared its independence. Its mission is "organize an association of Members of Congress who share a common concern for building stronger bilateral relations between Ukraine and the United States." With the cooperation with the Ukrainian American community, the Caucus serves to lend support for Ukraine, beginning with democratization efforts and market-oriented reforms, and functions as a source of information for Members of Congress regarding events in Ukraine.

Members
Since its inception, the CUC has been composed of members of both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Leadership

• Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
• Andy Harris (R-MD)
• Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
• Mike Quigley (D-IL)[4]

Members[5][edit]

• Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)
• Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA)
• Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL)
• Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA)
• Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA)
• Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL)
• Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
• Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA)
• Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
• Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)
• Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL)
• Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
• Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
• Rep. David Joyce (R-OH)
• Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
• Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
• Rep. James Langevin (D-RI)
• Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL)
• Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY)
• Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
• Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
• Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI)
• Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA)
• Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
• Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
• Rep. David Price (D-NC)
• Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY)
• Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL)
• Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
• Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA)
• Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA)
• Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)
• Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)
• Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
• Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR)

Former members
After 2018 election:

• Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA) (lost primary)
• Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA) (retired)
• Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) (lost primary)
• Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) (retired)
• Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT) (retired)
• Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) (retired)
• Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) (retired, former Co-Chair)
• Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) (retired)
• Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) (lost reelection)
• Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) (Died in 2018)

Relevant legislation
Leaders and members of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus have worked in the past toward the passing of legislation regarding Ukraine and issues that affect the surrounding region and its constituency in America. These efforts include, but are not limited to:

114th Congress:

• H.Res.50 Calling for the release of Ukrainian fighter pilot Nadiya Savchenko, who was captured by Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine and has been held illegally in a Russian prison since July 2014
• H.Res.162 Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity
• H.Res.348 Supporting the right of the people of Ukraine to freely elect their government and determine their future
• H.Res.878 Recognizing the 25th anniversary of Ukraine's act of declaration of independence from the Soviet Union
• H.R.5094 Stability and Democracy for Ukraine Act or the STAND for Ukraine Act

113th Congress:

• H.Res.447 Supporting the democratic and European aspirations of the people of Ukraine, and their right to choose their own future free of intimidation and fear
• H.Res.499 Condemning the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity by military forces of the Russian Federation
• H.Res.726 Strongly supporting the right of the people of Ukraine to freely determine their future, including their country's relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries
• H.Res.758 Strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination
• H.R.4152 Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014
• H.R.5859 Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014

Congressional Ukrainian Caucus - Wikipedia

If you want Biden to testify about Ukraine all these people have to testify as well since they would have allowed Biden to conduct corruptly and did nothing. They heard the same conversation you idiots are posting as evidence of some equivalent quid pro quo to trump. This is where your Obama did it too lies always die, because Obama didn't do it and false equivalences are exactly what they describe-fake or non existent equivalences.

at least you acknowledge biden as corrupt.

Actually I have not.

Actually you did, reread what you wrote

se people have to testify as well since they would have allowed Biden to conduct corruptly and did nothing

 

[jc456]

Because you then are going to have to ask some current republican senators to testify.

View attachment 303155

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
February 12, 2016 | Press Releases

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system. In the letter, Portman, Durbin, and Shaheen said they recognized the challenges facing the Ukrainian government two years after the Maidan brought positive change to Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to help President Poroshenko confront the duel threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine as well as entrenched corruption in the government and to create a transparent and democratic government. The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

“We recognize ‎that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies,” the senators wrote. “Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.”

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman

This press release is from the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman.

There was no Biden corruption. trump knows this.

Everything Biden did was bi-partisan and at Obama's direction. If he testifies, Lindsey may be called a Trump bootlicker to his face, and accused of using political process to influence elections. And of course Lindsey would say Obama did it first, but he'd be admitting to his own misuse of office.

And there are other goper senators who could foresee being forced to testify themselves. So Biden's not an issue.

Now the Gop might get some dems to agree to calling Hunter. BUT, Bolton won'd be called unless all Dem senators agree.

You know this how?

 

[yidnar]

the dems have called 17 witnesses how many more do yall want 18 20 100 the point is you have no concrete evidence all you have is hearsay and opinions [funny how the whistle blower rules were changed to allow hearsay before the whistle blower spouted his bull ]. and even if the POTUS entertained the idea of delaying money to Ukraine until possible corruption was looked into thats within his authority ! if you thin k 10s of millions of Americans that voted for Trump would accept a removal on these thin bull crap grounds you are mistaken .. the house builds the case and then when they are done they deliver the case to the senate [remember the solemn procession by the crooks with the stacks of lies being wheeled over to the senate] ..... they had their chance to build a case ... if they thought the case was weak [which it most definitely is ] they should have continued building on it in the house impeachment hearing instead of sitting on it for nearly a month before sending it to the senate ... now its time for the senate to rule on the case they have built ! and any republican that votes to extend this crap over hearsay and rumors may be voted out and replaced by another republican in their primary ...and they know it !

The house investigated to see if there was enough evidence to impeach. There have been no witnesses in the trial.

Which is appropriate since no witness testimony will change the outcome, acquittal.

If you actually believe that, then why all the whining?

Anyone who can do arithmetic believes that. It is time for Congress to end this farce and get back to work, and it is time for the Democrats to apologize to the American people for putting the country through all of this.

That's the rub. Trump party members don't care about the facts of the case. They only care about if they have enough votes to protect him from facing the consequences of his actions. The majority in the Senate are now participating in Trump's crimes to protect him.

here is Bolton talking about the Ukraine phone call .

 

[yidnar]

You really don't want Biden to testify...

I do

You say you do because you're dumb enough to believe trump. If you weren't, you would know that if Biden was to testify, it would kill trump and every hope republicans had in retaining the senate next year.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnesses

And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.

"I overheard Trump yelling coming through a cellphone in a crowded restaurant" is the opposite of evidence

Witnessing something has evidentiary value. It is direct evidence.

Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.

Again, the only thing you are doing as affirming that the GOP does not take their oaths of office in any value.

Actually, he's affirming no such thing, as he can't speak for any Senator, and as far as I'm aware, there are a total of zero Senators that take marching orders from anyone on this forum.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.

It is of legitimate value to sane American citizens and it's going to bitch slap trump in the fall campaign.

So you are saying this trial has no legitimate legal purpose and is only going on as part of a political campaign. Shame on you.

Of course, it has a legal purpose. It's purpose being to remove this president from office. The first step without no further legal steps can be taken as long as he sits in office.

lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.

OH, and by the way, Nixon's support appeared rock solid, days before it completely evaporated, one never knows what tips the scales. I agree that thinking that the GOP capable of mustering the courage nowadays in this climate is slim but there is precedent.

While that's technically true, the Nixon example is not really an apt analogy here. Specifically, the turning point for Nixon happened when he produced a recording known today as "The Smoking Gun" recording, which unequivocally proved Nixon's knowledge and involvement in the Watergate break in and the attempt to cover it up. Nixon was about to be impeached for serious crimes and the recording made it indefensible, it would have been an open and shut conviction (this is before "deep fakes" were a thing, plus the recording was released officially by the WH).

There's nothing comparable here. Even if someone happened to magically show up with an audio recording of Trump saying exactly what is being alleged vis-a-vis quid pro quo, it would still fall back to the argument made by Dershowitz and others that the allegations -- even if accepted on their face -- do not raise an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. And people can debate whether that's correct all they want (and there will never be a consensus agreement on this issue), the bottom line is there are not 67 senators that believe it warrants conviction and removal. In fact, I believe we'll see a sprinkling of Dems voting for acquittal (Manchin among them after seeing his interview this evening).

 

[MAGAman]

No, it's the senate's job to be the jury. I've never heard of any jury deciding what evidence the prosecution is allowed to present.

True. That is different.

But its countered by the prosecutors in the impeachment hearings being allowed to use Fascist tactics to deny what would normally be ordinary Constitutional rights of the accused.

The Prosecuting Democrats had the power to subpoena anybody they wanted before they voted to impeach.

Don't you wonder why they didn't?

 

[BULLDOG]

No, it's the senate's job to be the jury. I've never heard of any jury deciding what evidence the prosecution is allowed to present.

True. That is different.

But its countered by the prosecutors in the impeachment hearings being allowed to use Fascist tactics to deny what would normally be ordinary Constitutional rights of the accused.

What a stupid hyperbolic remark. Trump could have participated, but he chose not to.

 

[MAGAman]

Name an impeachment when witnesses beyond the original house witnesses were not called.

This is the first.

It's also the first impeachment to use Gestapo tactics in the House hearings.

It's also the first impeachment without a witness, victim, or evidence of wrongdoing.

It's also the first impeachment designed to stop voters from meddling in the election.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.

Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnesses

And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.

Their evidence is not sufficient. If an ambulance chaser lawyer files a frivolous suit, the judge will look at the "evidence" and determine that he/she is not wasting their time calling witnesses. That is exactly what is happening here. The House is the equivalent of a bunch of ambulance chasers.

In this case, the Senate is not the Judge. They are the jury.

A jury that calls witnesses and helps the prosecution patch up a shoddy case? Really?