WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day 5))

"Credible and urgent" are standards that relate to informing Congress of the WB complaint. One of the charges is in regard to trying to corrupt the 2020 election by going after Biden, via a proposed Ukrainian investigation. That was the "urgency," which was found to be valid by the IG and the DNI. It means the investigation should proceed ASAP.

 

IF the call was "perfect," why did a WH staffer call DoD within 90 minutes of the call to ensure that the aid was being withheld? What is in the transcript that tells Zelenskiy we are withholding aid? Why would we want to keep that a secret from Zelenskiy? Is the transcript complete? If not, what's missing? Why wasn't Congress informed of the intent to withhold aid PRIOR to the actual withholding, as required by the Impoundment Control Act? Was the administration "testing" the Act? Or, was it because people in the process thought withholding the aid without notifying Congress was illegal?

 

Actually, he doesn't.

 

So you would prevent any evidence coming out that could clarify what happened?
Sounds like you aren’t interested in the truth. You can’t handle the truth. All you are interested in is protecting trump by making sure the truth doesn’t come out.
That’s the definition of a cover up.

 

I looked. I couldn't find it. I did find where Kevin McCarthy issued a privileged resolution to hold a House Vote on whether there should be an impeachment inquiry, and that was tabled by the Dems. But I couldn't find an actual vote by the house to hold an Impeachment inquiry.

 

Another recap of the House prosecution's presentation to the Senate (humor)....

Schiff's Groundhog Day

 

I see you didn’t read the article. Lol

 

It wasn't credible in the sense that none of the WB's claims are true. The President didn't illegally withhold aid, nor was it done with regards to 2020. And this farce isn't an urgency for the nation or for its own case. Hence the DOJ admonished the IG and the DNI.

 

It's not a cover up. There's a process. Nancy Pelosi violated that process. Why do you refuse to hold HER into account? If Pelosi had handled this the same way the House handled Clinton/Nixon, then you'd have your witnesses.

The House's excuse has basically been to whine that they don't want to adjudicate the case. They don't want to adjudicate the case, but they want the positive verdict of witnesses. ROFL. Think about that logically. The secondary excuse is that they complain about the DOJ's legal arguments in those cases.

This is basically saying "We don't like it, and we don't want to deal with it." Yeah, I bet every plantiff wishes they didn't have to hear the defense's arguments, but they do. And you have to deal with and OVERCOME arguments to get the verdict that you want.

There isn't a cover up. There is a process, and process is important and vital to law. They accuse the President of abuse of power, yet the greatest abuse is to eliminate process from the law. The House wants a decree. We don't do decrees.

The process will be long and yes, lengthy. But that's the law as designed in our system of government. Pelosi doesn't get to skip steps. As she's so fond of saying: No one is above the law.

 

Can you please point me to the document setting out the process whereby all evidence has to be presented in the House? Because I’m not aware of the process you are referring to. And the Constitution calls for a trial before the Senate. In criminal trials, evidence is presented to the judge and jury. Witnesses are called and subpoenaed if necessary.
I’m not aware of any process that you say was so clear.
Anyway, it doesn’t change the underlying point: you guys DON’T WANT the truth to come out. You WANT the witnesses who might have first hand knowledge to be prevented from testifying. You’re terrified that if the truth were known, Bonespurs would be so obviously guilty that even you would have trouble defending him.
Cover up.

 

Actually, I'm on record for Bolton and Mulaveney, etc because to quote Jim Jordan: "The facts are on the President's side". You can have a MILLION witnesses, and it still won't convict the President on the record for these allegations.

 

There was no admonishment, only the finding that there was no campaign finance violation. Where is the DoJ opinion on the Impoundment Control Act? There isn't any...only the OMB's opinion. The OMB still officially led by the President's Acting Chief of Staff, Mulvaney. Read the transcript. Read the Act. Read the newly released e-mails regarding the WH check to make sure that we were withholding the aid, within 90 minutes of the "perfect call."

 

As did I.

The last Republican that I voted for was Norm Coleman.

 

I agree that they need to testify.

 

I wish that Pelosi did things right the FIRST time, but if it takes this to clarify the record and strengthen the acquittal, then so be it. Close the door once and for all, and then in November hopefully the nation rallies, not merely to re-elect the President but to give the House back to Republicans. Not that I'm a Republican, but that I hate Nancy Pelosi. Yes, I can say that clearly.

To be clear: I have no personal animosity with her, I do have every bit of political animosity and feel new leadership is required.

 

How was it her obligation to make the WH comply with the Constitution?

The reason we're at the stage we're at is because Bonespurs refused to comply with the Constitution. No President who was he subject of an impeachment inquiry has refused to cooperate. Why? Because the Constitution makes the House the "sole power" to conduct impeachments. Refusing to comply with the requests of the House as it carries out its "sole power" is obstruction of Congress, per se.

 

Not really. As the President's lawyer pointed out, their subpoena's lacked the legal force of law. It's not like the WH was brought to Court. Essentially, if there was a "discovery" phase, then yes we'd have all of the information. But that wasn't available to us. In both impeachments of Nixon/Clinton, we had the force of law. Here, we have the "force of Pelosi".

Except the force of Pelosi is non-law binding. Article II lacks the merits, and will be rejected by the Senate and must be rejected by those who understand common sense.

 

They had no case and they knew it so they need the Republican Senate to make one for them. If the Senate votes not to call witnesses then Schiff can say we needed witnesses and it's a cover up. If they do call witnesses, they can continue the fishing expedition in hopes that something arises.

I agree with you though, they should have done it in the House and they should have done things better and on a more even keel. That is not their aim though as they know they have nothing. If they had anything, they would have used it. This is all just an extension of the fake Russian Hoax and trying to remove a duly elected President. It's akin to a coup attempt.

 

I'm aware of the Democratic strategy. But I'm starting to see where Mitt Romney's coming from. If after all of the witnesses, the situation is unchanged, the acquittal is that much more powerful, slam it in Pelosi's face and make her the political red meat of the House of Representatives. Democratic reps/voters will eventually realize what we all know: All of this is HER fault.

 

Except that that **** argument has already been rejected by federal courts.

That's a phony "procedural" argument in search of procedure---there's utterly no basis in the law for it.

 

"The situation" is that Bonespurs tried to use his office to extort a personal benefit out of a foreign power in return for military aid that Congress had already appropriated for that country.

Those facts won't change. The facts won't get "better" for Trump.To suggest that this mean that he should be acquitted because he's withholding corroborating evidence and ordering corroborating witnesses to refuse to testify isn't an argument for acquittal at all.

 

Yes it is just statutory language and should nit be overhyped and the complaint was ruled not meeting whistleblower status nor any crime involved. How would the investigation into Biden's Burisma dealings have corruputed the election in 2020? Did the candidate Trump investigation corrupt 2016? The investigation still needs to happen and the Senate is about to start hearings into it.

 

You don't even know it's corrborating, or you wouldn't be asking for it .

 

Good for wanting those two to testify. Noted that you can’t identify any supposed process that Pelosi failed to follow.

 

Schiff can pound sand. His lies and misrepresentations exposed. He had every chance to call those witnesses in HIS investigation and allow that testimony to be present toe House for it's vote on impeachment. He has no right to demand the Senate conduct more investigation.