There have been deals floating around on "witness trades" - the Democrats want Bolton and the Republicans want Hunter Biden. The Democrats want Mulvaney and the Republicans want Eric Ciarmella. The list continues, but it's not necessary to list everyone.
The bottom line is that Democrats only want witnesses if they can control who and what is said (just like in the House) - Senator Schumer plays both sides of the fence - in the public he whines and cries, but we know that no one on the left wants to see Schiff, Ciaramella, or especially Hunter on the stand. There are many who think the Right doesn't want to see Bolton on the stand.
At the end of the day, both sides are hiding their pay-for-play schemes with foreign governments that enriched family members - no one in DC has clean hands.
No, we won't see new witnesses or documents in this farce of a trial, RJ. The Republicans cannot let this evidence come to light or they'll be shown for the hypocrites they are.
The redacted documents tell a story of the criminal activities Trump was involved in and they surely don't want to see them or hear from Bolton.
Hunter Biden knows nothing about the evidence against Trump, so how is his testimony relevant to the impeachment proceedings?
For once I agree with you - this has been a farce, however the Senators have been shown video clips of witness testimony in the House and received transcripts of most of them (all Democrat controlled of course)
But for the sake of review and a counter point, let's review the House process:
Not one of the witnesses was cross-examined in the House by the president’s lawyers, because Democrats broke with precedent and did not allow White House counsel to participate in the fact-finding phase of the investigation.
Nor did Schiff or House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) let Republicans call any new witnesses.
Now they want the Senate to allow them to do what Democrats refused to allow Republicans to do in the House.
Schiff has already parsed the words of others to twist them into something he thinks will be useful.
This entire notion was based on a "whistleblower" which the Democrats never brought in for testimony - wonder why they wouldn't have a person who actually had so-called firsthand knowledge to come in and support their case?
Also we heard about multiple high crimes almost daily from Adam Schiff, but none of them were in the Articles. Why not?
And since we're discussing the Articles, doesn't it seem strange that neither one of them has any basis in real law? Could you indict someone based on them (outside the political arena)?
So for all the talk of “witnesses” and “documents,” Democrats have already had plenty. Republicans and the White House have had none.
The defense does not need to call witnesses — not when prosecutors fail to prove their case.
It's America - where innocent until PROVEN guilty is the way the legal system works - the Democrats could have easily taken their time and methodically compiled a real case against the President in the House, but chose to rush two very weak Articles (which they then held for a month) just so Nancy Pelosi could taunt the President saying "Impeachment is forever" and pass out gold pens.
There is no requirement for the Senate to bring in new witnesses or testimony, only prosecute the case that the House presented.
RJ, you don't understand the process used in the House inquiry. Normally we'd have an AG who protects the people rather than the president. But we don't have this with Barr.
He should have appointed a Special Prosecutor to do the job of investigating the charges against Trump.
He refused to do so and the House had no other option but to do it themselves. If you know how a grand jury operates, you'd realize they are held behind closed doors with no one for the defense present. It's strictly a fact-finding session.
If Barr had done his job, the Special Prosecutor would have ran the GJ the same way, behind closed doors with no witnesses for the defendant.
The reason there were no witnesses for Trump in the House inquiry was because Trump refused to take part at all and stonewalled many of the witnesses and documents the House needed.
It's obvious you really don't have a clue about the House proceedings. It wasn't a trial. The trial is in the Senate and Trump is still Obstructing Congress.
Abuse of power covers crimes of extortion among others.
The only thing that is obvious is when you disagree with anyone you attack their intelligence. Your goal is never to debate or find the truth but to make up some story that you can use to demean your opposition. It is your signature move in all your discourse. Ralph’s understanding of anything far surpasses yours and your personal insinuations of his cluelessness.
The AG appoints a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and it is obvious to Barr and anyone not suffering from TDS the Democrat accusations leading to this impeachment are nothing but them using the government to attack a political opponent, the same thing they accuse Trump of. It is a sham and the only people that are clueless are those who believe it.
The house could have subpoenaed anyone they wanted to testify and they didn’t because they knew it wouldn’t help them.
Trey Gowdy Makes some obvious salient points here which you won’t listen to but immediately dis it as fake Fox News when in reality it is nothing but the educated and experienced opinion of a brilliant lawyer and former congressman that has nothing to do with any of your made up “Fox News agenda” accusations.
I've asked you numerous times to explain the proper way YOU think the inquiry should be conducted, but for some odd reason you haven't took me up on it, but continue to spew nonsense anyway. Now's your chance to prove me wrong, Turtle.
Another diversion Randy? I have no idea what you are talking about except that you always ask questions to divert comments from the topic at hand which most people have learned that is your motis operandi when whatever is being discussed has you over a barrel. So it just gets ignored and then you whine about it forever instead of dealing with your own problem understanding reason.
You just did it again.
Your notion of what "should" have happened is a far cry from what "is" happening. The Attorney General has no role in impeachment, so I fail to see why you keep bringing him up.
The House didn't even follow their own rules (which they rewrote to be highly exclusionary anyway) which should have permitted the minority Party to have a day of witnesses.
It's not up to us to decide HOW this should have happened - that's why we have laws that are built around facts, not hearsay and emotions.
You can insult me as many times as you feel it helps you sleep at night - I really don't care. My skin is thick and the facts are supporting my arguments, so please, insult, divert, and do anything you wish to make you and your followers happy.
But, just for fun - how about you list your credentials to the community on Political Science, Law, Constitutional Law, and anything else related to government, just for fun.....
Nope, no insults. You really are ignorant as to how the House operated, Ralph. They did nothing underhanded despite what you hear on Fox News.
If the AG had appointed a Special prosecutor--as in every other Impeach trial--he would held the GJ sessions behind closed doors just as the House did.
Your claim the AG has no part in the proceedings again come from your ignorance of the process. It isn't my fault you can't understand the process, Ralph.
Calling a person ignorant is an insult - maybe you think otherwise, but most people generally agree with me. Even though I'm growing weary of you dodging the questions, let's try it one more time:
Please show me the stature, law or Congressional Rule that identifies the AG's role in an impeachment - not what you think or repeating what past impeachment trials have been like, but a real factual citation of US Constitutional Law that shows the role of an AG in impeachment.
and please, not another "if this or if that" scenario.....it just shows how little you actually know about the subject, but are trying to claim the high ground on. The AG may be called on if necessary for investigations, but nowhere is his role defined by law, nor is he officially part of the process.
Impeachment is a political process, while AG Barr and the DOJ focus on real crimes, not made up ones like the Democrat Congress submitted in the Articles.
You talk a good game but we can see you don't have the legal expertise to back up your opinion(s).
Last chance - present the House Rule or US Law which shows the Attorney General's role in an impeachment trial in the Senate
Calling someone ignorant is not an insult, Ralph. I'm ignorant of rocket science and brain surgery, among other subjects. But go ahead claim you know everything about everything if it makes you feel better.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 024155002/
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/a … gulations/
I'm not the one making claims to know everything Randy - stop putting words in my mouth that I've not spoken. I see your offering more opinions rather than facts again. And it was a nice touch posting a link from 1999 - irrelevant, but I found it funny - the last time I checked the Brookings Institute isn't a lawmaking body
1. Still waiting for your credential to discuss Political Science - or didn't they teach that at the Agricultural College you attended? What's your degree in again?
2. Still waiting for you to share the actual laws on the Role of the Attorney General in an impeachment
Did you not claim the AG has no role in an Impeachment inquiry? I furnished links proving he does if he's not acting in the favor of the WH.
Barr would not have appointed a SP no matter if Trump murdered an American citizen in broad daylight.
Are you saying you have a Political Science, degree. Ralph? You don't even know who appoints a SP!
No Randy, I have a BA in Quantitative Economics, a BA in American History and an MBA in Business/Marketing - I showed my cards - how about yours?
Cite something from the Constitution that tells the official role of the AG - here's a real link to the document - https://usconstitution.net/const.pdf
I see the House's role, the Senate's Role, the Chief Justice has a role, but nowhere does it state what the role of the Attorney General is.
The AG has NO official role unless called upon - like in this case when the IG tried to get the DOJ involved based on the second-hand whistleblower complaint after the law was conveniently changed - the AG rejected it as being hearsay.
Okay Ralph, You said earlier the AG had no part in the impeachment proceedings. Now you're saying "unless called upon."
Which is it? Who appointed Ken Starr in the Clinton impeachment? Or the SP in the Nixon inquiry?
Dodging again Randy? "read closely - OFFICIAL ROLE AS LISTED IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION"
I'm still waiting for your list of degrees.....
Maybe your IQ would suffice? Doubtful you ever had an IQ test though.
We can keep this up until the President's next term if you want.
Ralph, didn’t you know his “badge of honor” is being a pot smuggler!
His own words not mine!
Can I play? I don't have any degrees, but I am a nice guy that likes sports.
Seems like another pissing contest is in order, GA. Should I enter or not?
"The redacted documents tell a story of the criminal activities Trump was involved in..."
How do you know that? Your crystal ball again?
I would love to see both John Bolton and Hunter Biden testify. And Joe Biden. And Mike Mulvaney.
Man, would that be fun.
Don't the American people deserve the truth?
It should be no surprise that I think the Joe and Hunter Biden accusations are a bunch of political hooey, and I just don't see any possible relevance their testimony could offer. By that I mean that even if there was some 'there there', (which I doubt), I sure don't think they will testify to it—even under oath.
So I don't understand why you would want to hear them testify.
Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and anyone else that Rudy can find that even might show some wrongdoing in the Ukraine that might be connected to the Bidens. An investigation, in other words, towards any possibility at all of "abuse of power". If even a trace of a hint were found, even a third hand rumor, it would throw that phone conversation into a different light.
A political light, used in any future elections for the next few years anyway - anyone convinced of Trump's guilt will not change their mind.
I was willing to have Hunter testify if it was the only way to get Bolton and Mulvaney to.
What was Hunter going to say other than, "They offered me a lot of money, so I took the job. Dad had no part of getting me the job, so what's the big deal?"
You're saying he would lie rather than get his Dad into deep trouble?
You're speaking as if you know he'd lie about something. What would the lie be? Do you know for sure? How did Ivanka get her job? You don't think because her dad was POTUS? Or Jerrod for that matter. You never said what his qualifications were.
You seem to know what Hunter's lack of experience was, so you should know what Sissy and Jerrod's qualifications are. Do tell!
Really? I thought I was asking you a question, not making a statement about Biden. But, as usual, your answer was to take off on an unrelated tangent.
You made the statement Hunter would lie for his father, Dan. How is my first sentence unrelated to what you asked?
Odd - I was pretty sure that YOU made that statement, not I. All I did was ask you if you really thought he would do that.
I have two degrees, Ralph. From two different schools, and like you, neither is in political science. I do have a wife who;s retired judge though. I depend on her for legal advice.
Apparently you missed my last question.
You forgot to mention you depend on your it son for computer advice! I mean two relatives who have degrees has to be great credentials for you!
Two different schools? Well one has to be high school and the other a trade school, right? If not, gee why don’t you brag about what kind of degree? You’re quick to brag about your pot smuggling, even wrote an article about it. Why aren’t you that proud of your degrees? I suppose they aren’t as good as a “badge of honor?”
Oh hell. That explains a lot. You depend on your wife to tell you what to think. ;-) ROTFLMAO
(quick, close that door before I get carried away)
ps. my wife tells me what to think too, but I only pretend to listen to her
Looks like its all over for the Democrats hoax impeachment. It's about time. Does make you wonder what the Democrats will make up now.
"Swing-vote GOP Sen. Alexander comes out against witnesses, paving way for imminent Trump acquittal"
"Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced late Thursday night that he would not support additional witnesses in President Trump's "shallow, hurried and wholly partisan" Senate impeachment trial, seemingly ending Democrats' hopes of hearing testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton and paving the way for the president's imminent acquittal as soon as Friday night."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate … hment-vote
Russian collusion, impeachment, I wonder what sham the Democrats will come up with after impeachment is DOA!
I'm sure we know what the Democrats are doing wrong so they always lose to President Donald Trump. I just hope THEY never figure it out.
Oh, they figured out what they are doing won’t work. They are just doing what they have always done best, lie, misrepresent, foment division and hatred because there is nothing they can do that will work and they know it! Just like with Kavanaugh!
Remember a leopard cannot change it’s spots.
We've already figured out the Republicans are terrified of him. We simply need to vote them and their corrupt leader out of office.
Yes, Alexander said he didn't need to see more witnesses because the House has proven their case. He said he would vote for impeachment though. Guilty, but not enough to remove him from office. Hmmmm.
Randy, I didn't see that one. Where did Alexander say such a thing?
There was an interview this morning with Alan D. where they placed Alexander's words to Alan, Mike. It was MSNBC where it took place. I'm sure you can find a clip for it.
Okay, I can't bring myself to watch MSNBC. I feel about them as you do about Fox news. I looked and can't find it, so, I'll take your word for it.
I understand, Mike. Even though I detest Fox, I still make myself watch it to see all sides of the particular issue. The interview was only a half hour ago so it may not be listed yet.
Sen. Lamar Alexander just spoke to a small group of reporters about his decision to vote against witnesses and documents.
"I concluded after nine long days, and hearing 200 video clips of witnesses from the House, I didn't need any more evidence, because I thought it was proof the President did what he was charged with doing, but it didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I didn't need any more evidence to make my decision," said.
This all but seals the deal. 60 Senators are required to vote to remove a presidet from office. So, that is highly unlikely right now.
"Murkowski comes out against impeachment witnesses, putting Trump on path to acquittal"
"Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski came out Friday against calling witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, all but assuring the Senate will move to wrap up proceedings with a likely acquittal in a matter of days, if not hours."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murkow … -acquittal
Yes, when the NYT story came out this morning it apparently pushed her over the edge. She dare not vote for witnesses now and called it partisan. What?
I hope her constituents give her as much consideration as she did her duty.
From Murkowski: ""Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don't believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed."
There is zero doubt that she is right. Outside of political gains, perhaps even into the election, what would be gained? Certainly Bolton isn't going to change a single partisan vote!
Her reasoning may be nothing but rationalization, but if so it was very well done and carries a lot of truth.
by Randy Godwin 2 weeks ago
We're going to find out much about our governing bodies of Congress over the next few days or weeks. We'll also find out if we're to be lead by a President or a dictator in the future. History will not be kind to those who allow the POTUS to be above the law.
by Scott Belford 9 hours ago
Now that the Trumplicans in the Senate abdicated on their duty to hold a fair trial and voted to let Donald Trump remain in office, did that mark the end of our democracy as we know it?Consider:1. There isn't a thing a president can do that will warrant removal if the Senate is made up of a...
by John 4 months ago
I don't know about you, but the wagon wheels on this impeachment iniative are starting to come off. The recent challenge by Trump for Pelosi to bring the impeachment inquiry to a house vote is a win-win move. If it comes to a vote and they decide not to impeach, then we go back to waiting for the...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 months ago
Now that President Trump is impeached, what will the ramifications be for American society? Will those who voted for Trump riot & even attack those who the former deem are responsible for this impeachment? Will sociopolitical divisions be further exacerbated than they are...
by Ralph Schwartz 3 months ago
The Adam Schiff-led show trial in the House tells us everything we need to know. It's purely a political stunt to turn voters away from President Trump. A couple of the key statements and findings that America has learned from the lengthy commentary:“At No Time Was I Aware of – an...
by Readmikenow 11 months ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is setting a high bar for impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her left flank clamor to start proceedings. Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post that “I’m not for impeachment” of...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|