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

And then on the alternative side, there's Trump's claim to the Take Care clause of the Constitution as well as the US-Ukraine treaty on criminal investigations. Just as the FBI claims it would have been derelict of duty to not investigate Trump-Russia(regardless of what little to nonexistent evidence actually existed), then that same claim applies equally to the President of the United States.

And I don't agree with the concept of 'dirt' on Biden. Like you said, if he's clean he's not dirty. The delicious irony is that essentially, Biden is being treated with kid gloves as opposed to a Candidate Trump, four years ago.

Where was this defense four years ago? Shouldn't we have said that the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory was a ploy to take out a presumptive republican nominee Trump?

 

By rule, the House has to give the Minority a day to call their own witnesses.

If they don't do that, the Impeachment will not be valid until the issue can be settled in a Federal courtroom.

The Senate will not be able to have a trial unless the issue is resolved as well.

 

Yes, we know that Trump was responding to some real potential crimes that Giuliani uncovered before Biden announced that he was running for office.

And we know that the Ukrainian president is not backing up the claims of Schiff and Nadler.

And we know from testimony from the Dem Lawyer, when questioned by Doug Collins, that Biden's conduct does meet the standard for a Quid Pro Quo.

So it is clear that Trump's motive was to find out if Crowdstrike removed data unlawfully from the FBI data banks.
Not to mention if US designated energy aide was misused by Burisma.

 

Suppose the Senate refused to hear the case on the grounds that it's not legitimate, because the house failed to follow its own rules.

 

This also raises one of the arguments that I have been making. The focus of impeachment is trump's conduct. I would be willing to bet that you would be much more likely to see 3 Republicans join a Democratic effort to subpoena those with first hand knowledge, like Mulvaney or Bolton, than you are to stop 2 Republicans from refusing to bring in someone like Hunter Biden.

 

This isn't an episode of Law & Order.

 

I disagree. I think that getting Mulvaner and/or Bolton to appear would guarantee that Hunter would be called.

 

You are definitely wrong here. As many have already told you.

But we have already established that you insist on holding your belief in the face of being objectively wrong so very, very often. So you do you.

 

Still impeached.

 

Not gonna happen.

 

Agreed, it looks like they'll either vote to acquit or to impeach. If he's impeached though, this isn't Nixon-levels of uniformity. I think it's time for the Left to look at the other side: Impeachment blew A LOT of capital for Democrats. The way I see it: You got impeachment, now you're going to have to fight tooth and nail for "medicare for all" and there will be concessions on both sides.

 

Nope....all the evidence and testimony including the Memo of the July 25 call establish that, but I know you will say "Look over there," pointing to Biden. Call it what it is TC......Trump has been caught redhanded with his hand in the cookie jar.

 

I wouldn't say they wont be called because it is a legal process, but because it is a political process.

You need a majority of 51 (the VP can not break a tie in impeachment) to subpoena a witness and because of the political ramifications, both immediate and long term, the GOP is not going to stop more than 2 senators from defecting to bring in someone with zero firsthand knowledge of trump's conduct - like hunter biden- or to violate the decorum of Senate by bringing in a sitting congressman - like adam schiff

 

They can impeach for jaywalking on a tuesday and no amount of websites from the Supreme Court of India will convince otherwise.

 

Even though Adam Schiff has already violated the decorum of capital hill by 1) The fake transcript 'his parody', 2) his closed door depositions and 3) His knowledge of the whistleblower?

I just find it funny that there's this whole impeachment of Trump, but someone as professionally unethical as Adam Schiff is going to skate off.

 

I'm sure the NEXT investigation will make all your dreams come true.

 

There was no testimony, or evidence, to establish any such thing. All that we got were opinions of what the facts led some to presume, assume, infer, accuse, or claim.

 

Well said and Exactly.

 

Yea...Trump is a ****ing moron.

 

There was........just to name two Witnesses who gave damning FIRST-HAND evidence of what was going on, especially with Giuliani...........Hill and Holmes. Can you recall what they testified to?

 

Let's revisit that standard in about 10 days.

 

Thanks for posting your own confirmation of the OP.

 

Huh?

What "Rule"?

I assume (that after making a "claim" like that) that you can post the citation and TEXT (of the Exact Rule).

I have never heard of such a thing.

Sadly, you have been misinformed.

 

No. Please refresh my memory. Did Guiliani condition aid on the fabrication of dirt on Biden?

Did Hill or Holmes witness such a thing?

 

Please do not state your legal conclusion without providing some source to a more reputable author.