The Defense Rests: GOP Leaders Reportedly Considering Not Calling a Single Witness

"Election security" says the people who were in charge of the 2016 "hack".

 

Is that opinion just based on the people in charge?

 

The Democratic candidates are so bad, we don't know who the nominee is going to be. Even Obama professed that all the nominees would make terrible American presidents.

 

The articles of impeachment don't contain any crimes let alone serious ones. Please tell us what they are and cite the statute if your contention is that they do.

 

Trump wanted Ukraine's president to declare publicly that he was directing a criminal investigation against the Bidens.

Suggesting that demand wasn't directed at propping up his own election is just plain STUPID.

 

Biden was leading Trump in Fox's polling.

 

there was no way to remove Trump, we knew that from the beginning that republicans would give him a pass on his actions.... but at least is will be recorded in the history books, that is important

besides, dems want Trump to run in 2020, it will help get the dem vote out

 

I read the transcript, please quote Trump saying that.

 

LOL!!!

Polling says a LOT of people believed that.

 

Don't think so...Trump is likely to "double down" as he did following the Mueller Report release. As long as there was nothing more than the "Barr Summary Memo," out, he claimed to be completely exonerated by the report. After it came out and people read it, it was - according to Trump - just another part of the "witch hunt." So...it's more likely, he'll "double down again" and claim more Executive power based on being "exonerated" by the U.S. Senate.
And, besides the impeachment and trial (which may be over by February) there is still Liv and Igor and campaign finance violations, the Stone, Flynn and Gates sentencing) the tax returns issue, etc., etc. So...suspect a lot more happens no matter which way the Senate "trial" goes.

 

Yea...same question.

In your mind, is there any amount or type of evidence which could prove this allegation in the absence of a direct confession from Trump?

 

False.

He asked for a public statement against corruption that did not mention the Biden's.

Or was that just "parody" there?

 

Congratulations, you get to elect a President on the heel of an impeachment that divided the nation and as I said: The political capital has been used. Capital that you could've used on Medicare for all, on other democratic agendas. Now, you'll struggle to get even a plural of the minority vote. So you'd better hope that you have 2/3rds of the vote with a President Biden.

Imagine if Trump is impeached but the House goes Republican. ROFL. You might as well have kept Trump under such circumstances.

 

this is Trump's staff, he controls if they testify or not, his choice to obstruct... we will see if Trump let's them testify in the Senete

 

No. He wanted a statement direction targeting Bidens.

 

This is a matter of defending our form of government.

All you focus on is winning an election by any means possible - sacrificing the fundamentals our founders established.

You should be more interested in the truth and in America.

 

What's the ICA? And, I don't remember Hillary using material from the dossier. Cite your source. She may have linked Trump to the Russians, but he was telling the Russians publicly to release the stolen e-mails...it was reasonable to Clinton and, apparently to the FBI, that there might be a link.
If the ICA references the Intelligence Community, that material wasn't mentioned publicly until much, much later long, long after the election.

 

So wait You're saying if the President declares war on Midnight Saturday he can rain down missile on Skopje for the next 24 hours?

And the ICE could drop Nancy off in Tiajuana until the SCOTUS opens?

Rather I always thought there was simply no real MECHANISM by which the President could do anything THAT blatantly unconstitutional.

This is why I think our Congress is doing us a positive disservice by being so spineless. We HAVE a mechanism by which they can make Trump obey the subpoenas. IMO right now some of the President's top aides should be held in Federal Prison, awaiting dates to testify as they have been ordered, having been sent there by Federal Marshalls sent by Congress.

 

Cool story what crimes were listed in the impeachment article or you say the idiots had the proof and didn't list them? You got nothing but a punch of political nonsense and you vindicated trump by not listing all those buzz word crimes you guys have been parroting. It's funny how you guys are defending this but I bet you'll be screaming like little girls when the next Dem Pres get's impeached because the republican house sent a subpoena to the white house, they ignore it and instead going to the judicial system we just say screw it and impeach. You know the judicial system that's decides who's right and wrong in these type of things. Bottom line you would have lost you know and we know it so your living on feelings. Congrats for you elected dumb dumbes for doing their civil duty and insuring Trumps reelection.

 

Well, then you didn't watch all of it or didn't pay attention or you would know what I said was true.

Really? You mean off topic for the dem clown show that has a lot to hide.

Too bad the dem clown show didn't call anyone that had any actual knowledge of the accusations against Trump.

 

Yes, that would really unite the country. Nancy Pelosi using the marshals(as Barr once teased her on). If she did something like that(not beyond her, actually), the country would be finished.

 

If this impeachment ensures that future Presidents are more likely to cooperate with congressional requests for information and subpoenas, then that is a good thing.

Also, impeachment does not require a crime even though Trump arguably has committed multiple crimes here. The decision of whether to include those crimes in the articles is a political decision, not a legal one.

 

IG Horowitz used the words "low threshold", which is legal speak for BS. There wasn't a rational reason to believe the conspiracy theory, except the desire to believe in it.

 

If you think the Senate dems aren't going to throw as much mud on the wall as the House dems did, then you must have forgotten the Kavanaugh hearings. Your faith in the Senate is a faith I don't have, even with a slim Republican majority.

Furthermore, it's not the responsibility of the Senate to prove innocence or guilt, but to judge the merit of the House impeachment. The House impeachment has no merit because it has no evidence of high crimes, let alone any crime at all.

The quicker the Senate Republicans drive a stake through this phony impeachment charade, the better off we will all be.

 

I'm not really talking about the Articles. I'm talking about the court of public opinion here and that court is seeing clearly that the President is guilty as sin and the Republicans members of Congress don't care. They will pay dearly for that in 2020