[HOPE KEPT ALIVE] The Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump

I’ve seen a lot made about Tulsi Gabbards’ present vote but 30 Republican reps didn’t vote at all. I’m wondering if there has been any discussion about those votes.

 

If there really was due process then McConnell and Graham should also be struck off of the jury pool as they’ve said they aren’t impartial.

 

I suspect that these Mormon women will be very disappointed when it is all said and done.

3 of the 4 US House members from Utah are Republicans, who all voted against both articles of impeachment. I wonder if these Mormon women really will actively hold them to account.

 

I thought only 3 didn't vote and they all have legitimate reasons.

Duncan Hunter (CA-50) - couldn't vote after pleading guilty to illegal use of campaign money

José E. Serrano (NY-15) - health issue

John Shimkus (IL-15) - out of the country

 

An impeachment "trial" in the Senate without witnesses or the materials subpoenaed by the House is a farce. The contrast between the Nixon impeachment hearings, including the Senate Watergate hearings, couldn't be more striking. The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, and a prominent senator, Lindsay Graham, have both stated that they are not impartial, when they have taken a oath to be impartial. McConnell has gone so far as to say he's coordinating the "trial" with the White House, in other words, the accused, and would allow no witnesses to appear, or demand the documents and materials subpoenaed by the House.

Those who belittle the effort of the House to get the White House to produce documents and witnesses, with trump refusing to allow anything of the sort, apparently have no knowledge of history. On July 24, 1974, The U.S. Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to release all White House tapes, not just selected transcripts, pertinent to the Watergate investigation. The unanimous ruling in United States v. Nixon, found that the President of the United States does not possess an absolute, unqualified executive privilege to withhold information. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger, appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by Nixon himself and confirmed by a 73-4 vote of the Senate, stated:

We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.

 

I want all of the potential witnesses to testify. Why didn't the Republicans make these folks testify in the house?

 

They requested Volker and the tall guy with glasses because they felt their testimony was the most favorable. After that I think they all realize that there are no good witnesses in this case and then Bolton and Cupperman created that lawsuit where witnesses could jump on and slow down the subpoena process till after the election (McGahn initial ruling took longer than 6 months).

So it’s obvious they want no witnesses. Today you’ll hear a lot of fist pounding about how key of a witness hunter Biden is. That’s nonsense. They are saying that because they know Dems won’t cave on a deal to trade witnesses so they can setup a fake excuse for their so-called moderate Senators.

You don’t trade witnesses in a trial. You call witnesses you think will help your case on either side.

 

Thanks for the response. If they really wanted to call biden they should have done it during the House's inquiry.

 

Biden doesn't need to testify, this is all about Trump and that's who needs to testify....

T_Man

 

Doesn't need to but still...why not let him testify if he did nothing wrong? Not to mention getting Bolton and possibly Mulvaney's testimony.

 

My personal opinion is that he's not a fact witness to the presidents conduct. That's why the House refused to subpoena him. If the Republicans want to investigate him and have him come testify they have the power to do that with the Senate Judiciary under Lindsay Graham under a separate investigation. That is where they have the power to have him testify, and where it would be more appropriate.

Hunter Biden wasn't on any of the calls with Trump. He wasn't in contact with Rudy, or Lev Parnas. He's pretty irrelevant to the case except he was unknowingly the political target. If you were prosecuting a identity theft criminal you wouldn't subpoena to bring in someone that was on the thief's list to target next. However if the evidence shows that the identity thief's target was a pedophile then law enforcement should open up a separate investigation and prosecution on the mark/pedophile. That's how you'd treat any uncovered wrongdoing of Joe or Hunter Biden.

However....I'm sure they'll say that he's relevant because he proves that Trump is actually a champion for fighting corruption, and bringing Biden in shows that he is corrupt.... but that talking point will be pretty easy to tear apart. If they really wanted to compel Biden to testify, they have the power to do it. They don't want that. (also take into account it would add a couple weeks of extending the Impeachment trial and push back the State of the Union).

 

I would agree except that his testimony isn't relevant to the case. Even if there was any evidence that Joe Biden had done something wrong (there isn't) then it still wouldn't be relevant to the case of Trump.

It would be wrong to start arguing issues in no way related to the case.

 

They have the power to still call Biden if they want to.

 

Testify to what?

He has nothing to add to this case.

And it still does not guarantee either Bolton or Mulvaney will actually testify or say anything important.

 

I posted on this in another thread but who the hell videos this? It wouldn't surprise me if Rudy got played by the Russians and lead Trump (not that he needed to be led) right into a trap. It also puts more context into why Trump had her removed. Someone (that he doesn't know???) tells him she's bad mouthing and he immediately makes a quick decision. Fire her. The only reason you film it is to cover your ass or set someone up.

 

Americans don't care because it is a forgone conclusion. If you're the President and you have either the House or the Senate you are essentially above the law.

 

I watched some. It’s incredibly boring.

He did this that and this. Here are 10 people that said so, here is himself saying so, here is him on twitter alluding to it, here’s his chief of staff saying he did it, here’s a ton of other incriminating facts, and another 10 people that have info but we can’t get to give to us. It’d be nice info to have.

he did nothing. All that’s nothing. Nothing to see here. Move on. White rich people forever.

rinse wash repeat.

It’d be like watching a Pbs special on gravity, with some folks like Kyrie Irving being like no gravity isn’t real. For hours on end. Only to know that at the end the gravity isn’t real folks will somehow hold a bunch of sway.

but more boring than that cause at least with gravity you could drop watermelons and bowling balls off roofs