The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump

House Republicans we're talking about here, not Senate Democrats.

Agreed. That's what I was saying. Now going point by point, did Pelosi sit on sending the articles to the Senate for a month or didn't she? And to head off any further deflection, "yeah, but she had a good reason to" doesn't equal "No, she didn't sit on sending the articles to the Senate for a month".

Again, it's a political process. The House followed a procedure similar to a grand jury in which suspects are not allowed to call witnesses (and only allowed such legal representation that prosecutors will allow, which means Trump got a better shake than suspects do in front of a grand jury) and the Senate followed a process by forbidding witnesses that resembles no kind of trial with which I am personally familiar.

Grand jury indictments are often sealed for the convenience of prosecutors. Another fact that doesn't bother "law and order conservatives" until they're on the receiving end.

I see the problem here, you seem to be under the impression that Romney was the only juror and that none of the witnesses would result in justifications for a decision being entered into public record.

I'm not saying they weren't following proper procedure. Garamet said that the Republicans were never disallowed from calling witnesses. You are saying that the Democrats were allowed to disallow the Republicans to call witnesses, which they did.

But it did happen?

I watch the news daily and listen on the radio during my commute. I must have missed them revealing who the whistleblower was. So who was it smartass?

Eric Ciaramella you fucking idiot.

You're seriously going to sit here and say that she didn't hold back on sending the articles of Impeachment. god you're a partisan hack.

I think it's clear that @garamet has no Idea what she's talking about.

Assume for sake of argument that you're right the question then is so what?

Let them call those witnesses and than you can mock them for being stupid about calling those witnesses.

But the reality is the Republicans are not the idiots you think they are. They knew exactly which witnesses to call up. The Republicans shredded the Democrats witnesses. The witnesses the Republicans would have called would have made it less likely the House would even approve impeachment articles much less vote on them. Obviously you can't accept that because you can't accept that the Republicans are not idiots so you live in a fantasy world instead of the real world where the Democrats case was so weak that the public at large shrugged at it.

The House has no business telling the Senate how to run any trial. Trials are the sole domain of the Senate.'

So there would never be negotiations and no Senator from either party would let the House controlled by the opposite party attempt to even think they could demand anything of the Senate.

There was no case here. The Democrats voted lock step because of party. If you peeled them off and asked them in person (without exposing them to the public) the majority of them would probably say Trump was not guilty but he's an asshole. I'd bet a lot of them would have rather censured him than have to gone through an impeachment trial.

The only thing the Democrats have done is help Trump get ever closer to winning 2020 along with the Republicans taking the House back and picking up a couple more seats in the Senate.

Thanks.

Except Oldfella is the made for TV movie on TBS or Lifetime.

Not even that good.

Straight to DVD.

Or never released. Buried in a hole next to the Atari 2600 ET game.

Nancy Pelosi was caught on camera pre-ripping the papers which totally puts the lie to her statement that her ripping the papers was spontaneous. More wonderful fodder for the campaign....



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lanning-rip-speech.html#v-7721075144364700823

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-...pproved-of-trumps-sotu-address-cbs-news-poll/

I don't understand this. To disallow something or actively not allow something means something different from following previously established rules. If, in a normal court case, the defence insists on calling witnesses during opening statements rather than during the trial, and only witnesses that are inadmissible according to the law, and the judge insists that they follow the law, it would be disingenuous to claim that that judge had "disallowed" calling witnesses. Even less so given that their later refusal to admit witnesses once they were in charge demonstrates that they never intended to hear any witnesses in good faith.

Totally not partisan on the Republican side, as seen by Trump calling for Romney to be expelled from the GOP for voting against him.

Contrary to what you think the Republicans in the House were not the defense team for the President. They are part of the House and served on the committee along with Schiff and the Democrats. In effect they were part of the investigation team looking into Trumps actions. They were able to ask questions of witnesses that were called. They were allowed to submit witnesses they would have liked to interview in front of the committee but the names they submitted were denied. They were also allowed to submit requests to subpoena evidence but again all requests were denied.

So the Republicans were, as MAOHS correctly pointed out, not allowed to call witnesses.

This process was not the same for the Clinton impeachment. The Democrats serving on the House committee investigating him were not his defense team. They were part of the investigation in the House. What little there was because Ken Star had done almost the entire investigation. They were able to ask questions of witnesses. In fact this is where the Democrats on the committee savaged Ken Starr when he testified in the House. There were no live witnesses in the Senate trial, only video of depositions. The House Democrats were allowed to submit witnesses that they wanted to interview in front of the committee. They were allowed to subpoena evidence. In fact during the Clinton impeachment inquiry the Democrats complimented the Republicans on being fair in the House.

Both Presidents defense teams were separate from the House. After the House voted on impeachment some of the Representatives than joined both President's respective defense teams.

Not only didn't he get the job he wanted, he didn't get it twice. Anyone who thinks he's not setting himself up for '24 is delusional. Will be hysterical to see how the left, who loves him now, will absolutely destroy his character and his family then.

So they were allowed to call witnesses that the Democrats wanted called?

They were allowed to call any witnesses they legally could, such as: not a whistle-blower who was fearing for his life if they did. The Democrats made no rules here; so I really think talking about "what the Democrats liked" is substantially misleading.

The Democrats were following rules the Republicans wrote during the Benghazi investigation(s) which came back and bit them in the ass. I'm not complaining about the Democrats using those rules to deny Republicans being allowed to call the witnesses they wanted. They got what they deserved, but what's misleading is a blanket statement denying that they were not allowed to call the witnesses they wanted.

Really? So, what other corruption(s) did Trump want Zelenski to investigate before releasing funding?

No one should have been surprised by this outcome. The local Trump supporters had already turned it up to 11, and now they've broken the dial. Having a Trump/Pence 2020 sign in your yard is becoming the new lamb's blood on the doorpost for his acolytes.

I don’t understand why there is this need to deny that the Democrats prevented Republicans from calling witnesses during the impeachment inquiry.

Schiff denied the Republicans the witnesses they wanted to call in front of the Intelligence Committee. Nadler denied the Republicans the witnesses they wanted to call in front of the Judicial Committee.

Doesn’t matter what you think of who the Republicans wanted to call but it’s wrong to say Republicans weren’t denied the ability to call witnesses. They were.

This is a lie.What is wrong with you?

"The Democrats made no rules here"

Democrats put rules in place that Republicans had to submit requests for witnesses to Schiff and Nadler (since both were the heads of their respective committees).

The Republicans submitted requests to both Chairmen and all requests were denied.

"They were allowed to call any witnesses they legally could"

This is bullshit because they were prevented from calling any witnesses to testify.

"not a whistle-blower who was fearing for his life if they did."

This is garbage. He was never in any danger and the Democrats and his lawyers ran that bit about him being in fear because they didn't want him to testify. But don't you worry your pretty little heart K. The whistle-blower will be testifying soon. He's not going to ride off into the sunset without testifying. Now that the impeachment is over the Senate Republicans will be calling him in.



And if the Republicans take the House back in 2020 you can bet that he will also be called to testify again in front of the House.

Long ago I abandoned the idea that a Republican could be a person of faith. But after watching Romney’s introspective speech I will concede there are a few left. With Trump now attacking Romney’s faith you can rest assured that no Republicans will step up to defend Romney. They are frauds, they are hypocrites, and they cherish power above all else.