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

The President has no constitutional power to block a Congressional appropriation other than his veto power. Statute law also allows him to withhold aid in emergencies. Otherwise, by law, he must inform Congress PRIOR to the act of withholding aid - even temporarily - of his intent, estimated budgetary impact, whether withholding is proposed to be permanent or temporary, if temporary, the approximate time of withholding, and the cause. He didn't do that.

 

Only republicans agree the president is allowed to abuse power.

 

That’s exactly what happened here. That’s why some are suggesting Vindmans brother was the leak.

 

"Schiff responds by saying that it is always going to be corrupt for a President to ask his own domestic investigative agencies to prosecute his political rivals "

So like what Obama administration FBI did to Trump in 2016 ?

 

I agree they should be able to respond.

 

Were protecting the presidents right to abuse of power.

 

Senator from Oklahoma has a bunch of co-sponsers (all members of the Senate Arms committee) for the Trump legal team: Which had a bigger impact on Ukraine's safety - Obama's decision to not provide lethal aid or Trump's temporary pause?

Obviously a softball. But one critical point in the response from Philbin (again) is that the signal to Russia was not a problem because Ukraine didn't know.

He doesn't really address how that signal did not get sent or wasn't important during the two weeks afer the Politico report came out.

 

Yes, technically. Not politically and socially, for I agree with you that it's idiotic.(And I don't mean by executive order. I mean to say, I disagree with it period.) The House is basically using impeachment, the same way the confederate preemptively decided that Lincoln's election meant the slave trade would be abolished.

It's not good for country, then or now. Deliberation is important, and the House chose to forgo deliberation.

 

Well certainly not proven by any measure. Unfortunately, for you guys the house isn't the king and we have a court system that determines innocence or guilt. I know when Trump is acquitted you'll still claim guilt, and of course every person in America knows what innocent means when the judge drops the gavel. I hope that one day if your found innocent your enemies don't find you guilty because they think something.

 

I'm sure that it may have been perceived that way. But our diplomats and our staff reassured the Ukrainians of our support, and the reaffirmation of that support is that the aid was released and that the Ukrainian President/Prime Minister both said no pressure.

 

Oh you would love the wacko lying lefty no doubt.

 

Individuals certainly may. Congress may expel its own members. Also, depending upon state law, they may be recalled by their constituencies. The House majority? No, don't think so. The Senate may, of course, vote not to remove on impeachment, but that's the limit...just as the House cannot ignore the Senate's decision on removal. If you want to go further into the details of why...it goes to the political theory of republican democratic government.

 

Why was the aid released?

 

"Schiff responds by saying that it is always going to be corrupt for a President to ask his own domestic investigative agencies to prosecute his political rivals "

So like what Obama administration FBI did to Trump in 2016 ?

Basic common sense pg. 1..... If your impeaching prior to the citizens you better have a damn good reason or you just like diluting citizens power to elect

 

Where is that limitation on impeachment in the Constitution?

 

Have they brought out a ouija board yet.

 

We got the emails from that UK newspaper. And if you read the emails(with an understanding of the financial jargon.) First: A review began in earnest around Mid-June, well before the July 25th call. Secondly, it was becoming clear that the review was getting closer and closer to completion, and the aid was expected to be released around Sept. 5th. It just took a few days later until the 11th.

 

Next question from Senator King is for both sides: Former Chief of Staff says that he believed Bolton and wants him to testify, do you agree?

Trump legal team (Sekulow): There are forceful pushbacks against (unrelated) portions from the article...if we go into witnesses, everyone will get witnesses and it changes the nature and scope of the proceedings. So...not an answer?

House Managers (Schiff): It doesn't really matter whether CoS or I believe Bolton, it matters whether you believe Bolton. Somehow it would be unprecedented to call witnesses, but this would be the very first to do such. And we agree they should also be able to call relevant witnesses as well. The timing would not be long because the chief justice can rule.

 

Does the house majority have certain extra tools at their disposal?

 

Schiff now argues that the reason he didn't go to court because it's time consuming but that the saying it's going to be time consuming in the senate is a threat by Republican lawyers. WTF is wrong with this guy my god.

 

This is the part where I remind you of the left's constant answer during the House hearings:

"It's a political process, not a court of law".

You're welcome.

 

"with no basis"

Nobody being honest thinks there is NO basis, maybe little basis but not NO basis

 

So what you're saying is, Schiff knows it was an abuse of power but he doesn't currently have the evidence of that.

 

LOL, Nice question. They used that to reference to the ICIG report that's presently in lock and key. So, Schiff if you really want all the evidence why not release that?

 

^^ wasn't in my question and your response answered a question no one asked lol