Perfect Explanation by McConnell of his position on witnesses

Well I did watch the impeachment hearings and I did hear Joe gloating about getting a prosecutor fired. He did say Obama would back him up so it would seem to be deeper than Democrats are looking.

 

It’s his rationalization of being a partner in a coverup. I’m working with the defendant who blocked the first hand witnesses and release of related documents and pretending to reside over his trial. Therefore we should disregard the evidence turned over with the articles and pretend nothing but the words in the articles are relevant.

You mean I actually have to my job?


He is starting to sound like Devin Nunes. ‘A lot of people call my office. Oh, yeah I now remember the call I received on my cellphone.’ Ah, Devin...

 

No such protection exist for whistleblower.

 

Your last statement is entirely true.

McConnell is in a difficult position. He wants to exonerate a guilty President.

He wants no witnesses to be called. He uses the ridiculous argument that all the evidence -- documentation, witness testimony, etc. -- should have taken place in the House. In his Senate trial, he wants just opening statements from the prosecutor (House) and defense (Trump's lawyers).

The opening statement by the House managers is not evidence and should not be treated as such. Trials require witnesses and documentation.

McConnell overlooks the Constitution. The House merely impeaches. Like a grand jury, the House merely determines if there is enough evidence for an impeachment. The House indicts. It does not try. According to our Constitution, the trial takes place in the Senate. Like a grand jury, the House does not determine guilt or innocence. The Senate does that with the presentation of all relevant evidence, including witness testimony.

McConnell's precarious position is that the House should have subpoenaed the witnesses they wanted. The Senate should not have to do the job for the House.

Democratic leaders in the House did not want to drag this out for months. They wanted to impeach Trump before Christmas, Christmas 2020. They did subpoena a witness. They subpoenaed Don McGahn ... nine months ago! They are still waiting for his testimony.

Much like Trump, McConnell speaks to Trump's base. They believe this crap. McConnell is not about to tell Trump's base about McGahn. Nor will he tell them why this is happening. Trump prevented those witnesses from being heard in the impeachment inquiry!

 

They could have petitioned the courts. Remember, Trump is the guy that the Dem Committee Chairs swore they would shower him with a mountain of frivolous subpoenas. Only natural for Trump to ensure they really needed the information by forcing them to use the courts, just as the presidents before him did.

 

Do you have a reading problem? I said, Democratic leaders in the House did not want to drag this out for months. They wanted to impeach Trump before Christmas, Christmas 2020. They did subpoena a witness. They subpoenaed Don McGahn ... nine months ago! They are still waiting for his testimony.

You must think the Dems are stupid. You just described what Trump wanted them to do. They are not going to play Trump's game.

 

When McConnell speaks, he wants Americans to forget that Trump incriminated himself ... twice. He doesn't want Americans to know ...

Trump incriminated himself and there is an abundance of direct evidence. This is a quote directly from the July 25 phone call, and it comes soon after Trump said, “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” The statement comes right after Zelensky expressed interest in buying Javelin missiles. This is what Trump said.

Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who· was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General.· :Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States,· the woman., was bad news and the people she was dealing with in.the Ukraine.were bad news so I jtist want to_let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot of.talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

During the impeachment inquiry, Trump's chief of staff admitted to quid pro quo.

“What you’re describing is a quid pro quo,” asserted the reporter. “We do that all the time,” replied Mulvaney. “Did he also mention to me the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about it. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/mulvaney-ukraine-get-over-it.html

After the July 25 phone call with Zelensky, as he usually does, Trump doubled down by asking again for foreign intervention in our elections. On Oct. 3, in a news conference on the White House lawn, he called on Ukraine and China to look into his chief rival's affairs, Joe Biden.

“If they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens,” Trump said when asked what he wanted Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the former veep and his son.

“They should investigate the Bidens,” Trump said. “Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/trump-calls-for-ukraine-china-to-investigate-the-bidens.html

 

Dems started launching an avalanche of subpoena's to harass the administration as soon as they won the 2018 election. Perhaps they should have been normal adults and accepted the results of the 2016 election ,,, and tried to work with the President when they won the House.

When Impeachment Started


https://tinyurl.com/r6ha95c Politico 04/17/2016 Could Trump Be Impeached ,,,, ?

https://tinyurl.com/urr8w4m Vanity Fair 12/20/2016 The Evidence To Impeach Donald Trump ,,,


https://tinyurl.com/vaur7gt Fox News 01/17/2017 Jumping the Gun? Rep Waters Floats Trump Impeachment ,,,

https://tinyurl.com/yx6qd5nc Mediaite 04/17/2017 Maxine Waters leads Anti-Trump Crowd in ‘Impeach 45’ Chant

House Resolutions

https://tinyurl.com/r8mk2zl 115-438 07/12/2017

https://tinyurl.com/rtedztk 115-621 11/15/2017

https://tinyurl.com/t3qt2k9 115-646 12/06/2017

https://tinyurl.com/ukvqgha 115-705 01/19/2018

https://tinyurl.com/ybgz9tgu 116-13 01/03/2019

https://tinyurl.com/vj6hvht 116-257 03/27/2019

https://tinyurl.com/v2eydru 116-498 07/17/2019

https://tinyurl.com/qtu9crh 116-755 12/10/2019

 

A. The Constitution says nothing about HOW the trial will be held

B. You correctly call it a trial. Trials have witnesses and evidence

 

The witnesses were all called by Democrats behind closed doors and their testimony documented and spun by Schiff as a PR event to destroy the President with lies and innuendo at the end of each day. The managers designated by Pelosi present the case to the jury, which happens to be the Senate. If the House's case is solid, the Senate will remove Trump. If the case is as bogus as everything else radicals have pushed Pelosi to do, it's on to the next impeachment vote in the House.

 

Neither was the dem clown show in the House.

 

Most of Trump supporters do in fact support him as do many independents and some Democrats. In the mind of the House Trump will never be exonerated. When the Senate fails to convict the House will just start looking for reason number 27 to impeach again.

 

If the vote were 97-3 based on evidence not process I would applaud the work they had done.

 

Biden's public statement was that of the economic policy of the United States, Barak Obama, our allies, and the World Bank on Ukraine loan guarantees. Biden received nothing personal for this policy, nor was it secret or outside the named loan guarantors. In short, Biden was upholding U.S. and international loan guarantee policy. Ukraine knew the terms of the loans and was refusing to comply on corruption matters. Once Ukraine fired the offending people involved, the loan guarantee went forward.

 

You are accepting that is the whole truth while I think it may well not be. None of those people listed are crooks and yet they have all gotten rich. I think a bit of skepticism toward govt. is healthy.

 

Yup, Trump is that bad. His nasty history goes back to encouraging foreign interference in our 2016 election, caught on tape acting like a sexual pervert, paying off a porn star and a Playboy bunny, firing a FBI director for investigating his NSA who made a deal with the Russians, destroying an agreement that permanently barred Iran from making a nuke, surrendering Syria to Russia, and lots more stuff.

But I don't want to derail your thread.

Are you trying to derail your own thread? We were talking about McConnell and Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate.

 

Ken Starr conducted a three-year investigation of Clinton with all the White House witnesses he wanted behind closed doors and their testimony and documents were spun by Starr as a PR event to destroy the President with lies and innuendo at the end of each day

 

I knew Trump's fans would not touch this post. It contains direct evidence, and Trump incriminates himself ... twice.

They are not alone. Republican Senators are avoiding this direct evidence as well. I don't blame them one bit. As seen by this direct evidence they are trying to defend a guilty President.

 

Except for that absolute immunity stonewalling order from the guy under investigation.

 

This has been well choreographed. Slides seamlessly from one charge to another. Thing is he has been impeached based on the testimony on record and for the charges listed. The Senate trial is to determine if they are justified, not to continue and expand the impeachment investigation for the House leadership.

 

No, that is false. You are overlooking the Constitution. The House merely impeaches. Like a grand jury, the House merely determines if there is enough evidence for an impeachment. The House indicts. It does not try. According to our Constitution, the trial takes place in the Senate. Like a grand jury, the House does not determine guilt or innocence. The Senate does that with the presentation of all relevant evidence, including witness testimony.

You are supporting a trial without witnesses. That is ludicrous. A trial without witnesses is a cover-up.

You are suggesting that the opening statements in your trial is evidence. Opening statements are not evidence. Are you suggesting a trial without evidence?

 

Damn, I always forget just how noble the left is, my bad. There were witnesses, endless lists of them. It was their testimony the House based their (giggle) impeachment on (giggle, giggle).

 

Well the dem clown show certainly is since they are now hysterical about having impeached a President with zero evidence. They want the Senate to do the Houses job now.

 

Addresses all the recent bloviating about how impeachment wasn't really started until they got "solid evidence" -- their words for partizan opinions.

 

witnesses called and evidence presented by only either the plaintiffs or the defense, never by the judge nor the jury.