A fair trial requires?

Democrats would love to do that. It would drag their political circus out indefinitely.

The point is, and this was Alexanders point, that if the allegation is not impeachable even if true (and he thought it was true) then there is no need to have witnesses to prove it.

1 Like

GOP committee Representatives were given equal time to ask questions.

Cross examination is the process of asking questions buy the other side.

Therefore the GOP committee members did cross examine those that were being deposed.

Simple logic.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

Correct.

Impeachment is a Constitutional process not a criminal one.

Removal from office (and possibly being barred from holding office) are the only outcomes.

The House impeached Trump - that is their role. Some think he was railroaded, some thing they provided enough evidence.

The Senate’s role was to hold a fair trial to present the evidence available. Looks like McConnell will get his white washed trial.

As Mulvaney said “Get over it.”

The House action is done. The Senate action may be done today. But I can guarantee you it will not end here as more and more information come into the public sphere through Bolton, FOIA actions, and others that spill the beans. It will not look good on Senate Republican’s.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

1 Like

If this were a judicial trial and there were witnesses needed to prove or disprove a crime, then those witnesses should be allowed.
Here, as we have been told many times, no crime is alleged or needed.
However, if there is no crime then what rises to the level of impeachment is subjective. If it is not possible that 2/3 of the senate believe that, even if true, the allegations are impeachable…then what (other than political show) is the purpose of witnesses?

I’ll be honest.

I wanted witnesses so that the light of truth could be shined into the dark corners of Trumps actions.

Light is the best disinfectant.

Trump has not been good for my party because it’s continuation of personality over party and party over country.

There is no doubt in my mind that he had a campaign of dirt-for-arms to help him personally.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

2 Likes

I can say a cat is an elephant. However, it doesn’t make it true.

Now, replace Trump with Biden.

1 Like

Go for it! Open the investigations. That’s a separate issue though.

No. That is the issue. Is wanting Biden investigated, unlike investigating Trump, impeachable.

Go ahead, would have had not objection to investigating Biden.

However 2017 - nothing.

However 2018 - nothing.

Now it’s 2019 and J. Biden becomes the leading DEM opponent to Trump (at the time) and “HE MUST BE INVESTIGATED!!!”

Sorry the turd that it was about corruption (none being shown) don’t float. It was about Trump using his office to advance his personal reelection campaign by damaging a moderate that could beat him.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

2 Likes

It’s not the wanting Biden investigated that’s the issue. It the steps he took to do the investigation. Why is that hard to understand?

Underlying the Constitution and the Bill of rights is due process.

Yet you say you can uphold the constitution by denying due process.

implying that politics is above the Constitution. Twisted logic at best.

more dangerous than a lynch mob more likely

1 Like

Its not hard at all. The question is, assuming all allegations are true, is it at the level of removal from office. My judgement is not. We shall soon see the Senate’s judgement.

Please don’t say “Yet you say you can uphold the constitution by denying due process.” to make it personal about me.

Supporters of the President were given equal time to question those deposed.

The Senate will choose today to NOT subpoena witnesses. To NOT allow the President to face his accursed to NOT provide for the presentation of exculpatory witnesses. THEY are also denying “due process”

So don’t place that blame only on the House. The Senate is denying due process also.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

Of course you think it’s not, he’s your guy. I’d put money down that you’d feel much differently if it was a Biden or Obama or a Sanders in the hot seat.

1 Like

Surely the USA constitution is the pre-eminent law of the USA; nothing is above it?

A fair trial is a trial that is not conducted by congress. Which side has placed fairness and good intentions above winning? Nobody cares about fairness.

1 Like

What is irreconcilable, save for one reason, is Trump not wanting witnesses in the trial that should ostensibly clear him completely. The only sane, rational explanation is that Trump knows that the witnesses wouldn’t clear him, they would damn him.

Why would anyone not want to ensure that the record contains evidence of one’s innocence for posterity?

Just win baby. And we have won. :us:

Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Mueller investigation for a lesser stake than 4 Senators have in this impeachment outcome.

No crying about fairness. Trump had to fight uphill every day of his term.

:hotdog:

1 Like