McConnell prepares to move forward on impeachment trial rules without Democrats

McConnell prepares to move forward on impeachment trial rules without Democrats
GOP leaders have enough votes to ignore Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s demands for witnesses and new evidence.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...eachment-trial-rules-without-democrats-095537

Senate Republican leaders are preparing to move forward on a set of impeachment trial rules without Democratic support.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has locked down sufficient backing in his 53-member caucus to pass a blueprint for the trial that leaves the question of seeking witnesses and documents until after opening arguments are made, according to multiple senators.

That framework would mirror the contours of President Bill Clinton’s trial and ignore Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s demands for witnesses and new evidence at the outset.

No final decision has been made to move forward with a partisan approach, but in a brief interview, McConnell said he would address the possibility of spurning Democrats on Tuesday afternoon. He's already won key backing from the handful of Republican swing votes heading into the trial.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mitch McConnell will not allow ANY witnesses to be called. What else could we expect from the guy that said he's coordinating the impeachment in the Senate with White House lawyers? Did anyone really expect any republican to do their constitutional duty?

 

He will fulfill his duties by looking at the evidence and testimony sent to him by the house just like it is spelled out in the constitution.

 

Practically Trump is done .

If they do the trial without the witnesses It means that republicans knew very well that there was some thing seriously wrong with Trump otherwise why would they fear from witnesses . And that means Trump will not be elected in 2020.

If they let the witnesses to participate then that's another huge problem for them . Because so far we know that trump did hold the aid therefore he did break the law. Republican's arguments are irrelevant they say Ukraine didn't know that and it didn't effect them at all. It's not importand what Ukraine felt . The importand thing is that Trump did broke the law.

I believe if the witnesses start talking we will see republicans defecting one after another to save themselves.

 

How often has MSNBC and Rachel Maddow been wrong again? Why not wait for the trial. We'd been through this before: "COMEY BOMBSHELLS", "COHEN BOMBSHELLS" and so forth. The American Populace is simply sick and tired of the beaten dead horse.

 

It's ok . But it should be a fair trial and a fair trial has witnesses. If they do that without them they're practically spitting on democrcy's face.

 

Apparently MSM has convinced a significant portion of their viewers that Trump is 1) being charged because he withheld aid and asked for and investigation, and that 2) his exercise of Executive Powers for the administration to decline requests to participate in the hearings constitutes "Obstruction". Neither is true, of course.

Hard to debate with someone when we're not starting with agreement on basic facts.

 

What you say is true and I don't deny it . Yes Trump exercised his power to hold his staff from testifying. It's not illegal.
But let's ask this question why did he do that ? Isn't he innocent? So why didn't he help the inquiry?
I don't care about what Rachel Madow is saying.
I'm just simply stating that Trump's behaviour doesn't look innocent.

 

The important thing is that such an accusation is accompanied by tangible proof. And by that I mean not just "He said, she said"
And as for witnesses; how about the Ukrainian President being called so he can refute the accusations of aid being withheld and Trump asking for a favor?

 

The Democrats moved forward on impeachment in the house without Republican input on the House rules. Why can't the Republicans in the senate do the same thing? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The House democrats ensured they had everything their way, seems only fair the Republicans in the senate doing the exact same thing is only right, fair and equitable.

The problem is Trump has been pre-judged by both parties. Neither party is impartial and neither party cares whether the evidence warrants removal or it doesn't warrant removal. This whole impeachment process has been about as biased as it gets and 100% pure partisan. Are you that partisan that you can't admit that the 47 democratic senators haven't already have their guilty vote set in stone regardless of the evidence or witnesses, that they are totally biased. So why have any, most GOP senators have done the same with their not guilty vote. Just order the senate into session, vote and let's get this over with.

 

If you charge me with eating a bowl of soup, suggest that is a crime and then ask me to show up and defend myself, I'm not showing up unless you get a judge to tell me I have to show up. ....but my behavior sure does make me look guilty of eating soup.

The House has not charged Trump with breaking any criminal code. Why should he dignify the accusations and participate in their partisan charade?

McConnell has not said yes or no to witnesses. All he's done is state that the Senate will follow the rules used in the Clinton impeachment. The House Impeachment Managers will make their case against the President. Trump's defense representatives will make their case in his defense. After that, if Senators feel the need to call additional witnesses, they will vote on whether or not to allow witnesses. It's very possible that witnesses will be called.

 

Those aren't the accusations. The House used those facts to charge Trump with "attempting to interfere with the outcome of the 2020 election". They have to prove Trump's intentions.

 

He's only giving the issue the same fairness to the issue the dumbycrats did on the house of ill repute.

If the Ds wanted more witnesses they should have done it in the house. They had legal means to try and get what they wanted and they didn't do it.
This is not Republican corruption, it is democratic fail.

 

Wrong..

And
that's not one of the charges..
He was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of congress.

He's not being charged with illegally withholding aid.

 

You know the "rule" though. When Democrats fail, it's Republicans fault.

 

Right

because of withholding the aid.

 

Sorry, it was released within the fiscal year so no law was broken.

 

Wrong.

 

Wrong. They have charged that he held the aid and requested the investigation for personal reasons. That's what they have to defend - Trump's motivations.

The defense will argue that Trump made the request because of his promise to Americans to investigate corruption in Washington DC elites. The withholding of aid is very common practice and justified because Ukraine, a known corrupt country, just had a major leadership change. The defense can easily claim that though the timing was coincidental, the holding of aid and the request for the investigation were two independent events, done for different reasons. ...but both done in the interest of the country and not for personal reasons.

 

Yes that is in fact the importand thing.
And know we're in trial and Trump is accused of sth. Isn't it more logical that we go and ask the people who where ingaged in the process to see what happened. Why the people should be kept in the dark.
I mean let's say that Trump is innocent. Let everyone know for sure.

 

It's not a good example. You can't justify Trump's did with eating soup example .
Suppose that Trump's did was like eating a soup and he is utterly innocent. Ok who cares about dignifying the accusations . Let the witnesses testify that you just ate a soup be done with it.
In fact if some one is really innocent by bringing the witnesses he is infact undignifying the accusations.

 

McConnell is now in charge. Pelosi has shot her wad and is done. Just like the constitution says.

 

I mean why are discussing on such technicalities .
Either way my point is it all started by withholding the aid.

 

The House should have compelled the witnesses.
Too bad, so sad

 

Trump withheld the money legally. Trump requested an investigation into the actions of a previous high-level politician legally. He "ate soup".

Democrats have to proof that he ate soup for nefarious personal reasons. Trump's defense has to say "No, he didn't." They will put forward all the reasons Trump was motivated to take the actions he took. Then Senators will decide whether Trump acted with selfish motivations or out of concern for the best interests of the country. We don't need more witnesses to do that.

 

When ya hot ya hot, when ya not ya not. Table has turned.