So are you suggesting that in a criminal case, once the indictment is presented, no more evidence is allowed at trial? Cuz that’s NOT how it works.
This is not a legal trial, as Dems repeatedly point out… When it suits them.
Constitutionally, the House presents the articles of impeachment, and the filed document is tried by the Senate, to see whether the House had enough evidence presented during the House investigation to back up the allegations reported in their articles. They don’t have to consider any new evidence raised by the House managers, since that new evidence was not part of the House deliberations leading to their articles.
1 Like
When Ambassador Soldman said that in a telephone call with Trump that Trump had said “no quid pro quo”, why was evidence not presented that confirmed such a telephone call took place?
They have to consider whatever 51 senators agree to consider.
I’m suggesting that if you had enough evidence for the House to impeach, present that same evidence in which this decision was made…to the Senate.
.^
.
.
They will. Plus any new evidence that has come to light.
Maybe even, you know, witness testimony and documents that Trump blocked from being included in the House action.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
I say let them keep muddying up the process.
It is getting us the best policy for working Americans that we have had for 50 years.
I am fascinated at the lengths the house D are willing to go to.
This is how absolute power corrupts. This is why Pelosi has such hubris. There is no time limit on her power.
It sure sounds like you aren’t interested in getting to the truth but more towards exoneration.
The President has a lot on the line with this impeachment process so wouldn’t it be cool…that if after this goes through the Senate and if…the President is found not guilty…that those who brought up these fake charges could then be sued for defamation?
There is not IF involved, McConnell is coordinating with the White House to ensure that doesn’t happen.
But ya, I’d be all for the Donald J. Trump suing for defamation and the discovery that would allow under court subpoena.
Defamation is a civil action and as we found in Clinton v. Jones, the President can be compelled to testify along with those witnesses and documents he blocked from appearing during the impeachment inquiry.
So ya, bring it on.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
2 Likes
If Trump or anyone else…is guilty of a crime…I want them prosecuted for that crime. The problem is, that’s not happening on an equal basis. Justice is being used as a political weapon, being applied when those in power desire it and that…IMO…is the biggest crime of all.
What are they scared of? It was a perfect phone call. What evidence could even be introduced to make trump look bad?
Impeachment is not a criminal case. Haven’t you been keeping up with your Democrat talking points?
Why indeed?
Heard the one about the elephant in the room?
and how does that address the OP
what was Johnson falsely accused of?
Not so much as insisting he did it because he’s a crusader against corruption.
Its not that he was falsely accused of anything, its just that what he was accused of was not a high crime or misdemeanor even if true.
History repeats itself.
ok what was he accused of?
You don’t need to be asking me questions. Its all in history books.
