WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump resumes in Senate

No Democrat has ever said that Democrats need this evidence to prove their case.

 

He lost slightly more seats than is average for an unpopular President. And the fact that the economy was and is going well means that Trump's unpopularity (which continues to this date) is because of Trump's own **** ups.

Trump would never be impeached without losing the majority in the House.

 

Did you think Kupperman would get decided as quickly as it did?

 

That's what I was thinking too.

Trump doesn't like handing out millions and billions is U.S taxpayer money to other countries around the globe, unlike his predecessors. It's very normal for Presidents to freeze funds for various reasons. For Trump, it's "more" normal.

Dems picked the wrong target (withholding aid) for these impeachment articles.

 

Well. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

 

Kupperman was never decided except to the extent that the lower court dismissed the lawsuit as moot.

 

Didn't a new president win the election in Ukraine around the same time as Trumps ask?

Maybe he asked the new guy and not the old guy cause the old administration was in on the ignoring Burisma corruption train and there was a thought the new president might not be in on it.

 

Trump thought that Ukraine would be a soft target. They were wrong.

 

Schiff did, today. One of the most surprising things he said in his opening statements was that he has no one to call if they can't get the additional witnesses and documents they are requesting. Admission of defeat.

 

Yes, but as we learned this last week, Trump's efforts to create a quid pro quo of something of benefit to the Ukrainians in exchange for dirt on Biden spanned into the previous administration as well.

 

The have no authority to call the previous witnesses to testify before the Senate.

But that is still, as I said, not proof of any Democrat saying that they need additional evidence and witnesses to prove their case.

 

Haha. Good old CNN.

 

It is, which adds just another point in support of the argument that Trump's own ****-ups resulted in his impeachment.

 

I bet Biden really wished his son never took that job with that notoriously corrupt corporation and that he'd have recused himself from running point in Ukraine. If he had there would've been no dirt to be had huh

 

Let's be blunt: The facts aren't in question:

Trump asked for investigation into the BIdens/Server conspiracy in Ukraine

What is uncertain is:
A: Did he in fact do it for a political motive?
B: Did he withhold the aid to pressure the Ukrainians?(Ukrainian officials have all said no, and one of the sitting jurors already has heard information from Trump on a no.)
C: Does it warrant a removal from office?

That's where we are. Everything else is grandstanding.

 

So, your saying that they do not need this information, but they are wasting time asking for it!! Got it.

 

He knows his case is pathetic and that he will lose. He knew that from day 1. We all knew it.

 

No, that does not actually support any argument. It only says that he would not have been impeached if Democrats had not won the House. Period.

But I will argue that Trump's impeachment will result in his acquittal, if we're playing "master of the obvious" now.

 

Another motion to amend the rules tabled by Senate vote.

Schumer now making a motion to subpoena Mulvaney.

This is fun.

 

Oh boy...

 

Yeah, either or, right....one or the other. The Obama Administration was whispering about how bad that would look to the public...but no one bothered to tell Joe? Incredible.

 

To be fair to the Dem leadership they held onto the articles for 33 days while they desperately tried to find some evidence that could conceivable be made to fit the weird charges. They failed of course, but they did try.

 

So if Trump lost like say, 1030, he would have been even more unpopular? What exactly is your point here?

What the Democrats don't want you to know: Party lost more than 1,030 seats in state legislatures, governor's mansions and Congress during Barack Obama's presidency

"President Barack Obama often cites numbers like these while boasting about his tenure in the White House: 15 million new jobs, a 4.9 per cent unemployment rate and 74 months of consecutive job growth.
But one number almost always goes unheard: more than 1,030 seats.
That's the number of spots in state legislatures, governor's mansions and Congress lost by Democrats during Obama's presidency.
The statistic reveals an unexpected twist of the Obama years: the leadership of the former community organizer was rough on the grassroots of his own party."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...complished-policy-goals-party-floundered.html

 

I think if there was reasonable suspicion of a crime then it's fine. Biden opened himself up to this no one else.

Even if your A. Question did happen if there was a reasonable suspicion of a crime it'd still be fine imo it's a two birds one stone thing

Your B question is the same depends on if there was reasonable suspicion of a crime

C, if processes weren't followed correctly there should be consequences but I don't think it warrants removal. I agree with your idea of censure being democrats best bet but that ship has sailed

 

You go a step too far when you argue that they are wasting time asking for it.

Even as all of these amendments have been defeated, Democrats have had the opportunity to trot out a great deal of their evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. And that ignores the very real political ramifications for all of the vulnerable Senators who will be targeted in 2020.