federally indicted mattoid

I don't like to respond to dumb posts either, but I can't help pointing out the repugnant party has something to hide. Lots and lots of them do anyway.

IMPOTUS blocked witnesses.

Where has the honest Republican base gone?

federally indicted mattoid

He didn't whine, you whiney whiner.

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

yes he is.....ya just cannot make stupid up like he is, nobody would believe it. Florida must be embarrassed of him.

Buck Loc: Valparaiso,IN

Prove to me Trump is a racist. P.S. I was Air Force Security Service for 4 years.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Those poor Floridians.

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

With the exception of a handful they are still there too bad there are none on the Democrat side !

The house responsibility is to put forth the evidence and the Senate to look at that evidence and judge whether there are grounds for impeachment or acquittal !

It's not the Senate's responsibility to provide witnesses if the House can't do their job it's not up to the Senate to do it for them !

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

byronglimish I said that he is our POTUS till November , then there will be a election. Perhaps you should learn to read the whole text I am anti Trump but he is our POTUS and should be till the American voters can decide for themselves.

straightUp Loc: California

I would like to say that maybe it's also the Trump supporters that just got sucked into all that partisan rhetoric the media keep pumping out, but that excuse is starting to get thin. I agree with you, things are getting pretty dang obvious.

With what this trial is revealing, namely the Republican refusal to allow any more information of any kind into the chamber, it's becoming quite obvious that they are attempting to proceed directly to an acquittal with minimum consideration for the charges. I believe the word for this is negligence.

EVEN - IF - IT - IS - a witch hunt - it should NOT matter! The Senate should respect the concerns of the House, proceed with a full trial and consider all the information available, if for no other reason than the fact that the House IS prosecuting, which makes it the Senate's constitutional duty to treat it seriously.

And EVEN - IF - Trump is innocent of the charges, I have the utmost confidence that he and the Republicans can assemble a defense that can invalidate any false claims against him.

So, if a president has to rely on a senate controlled by his party to block all information out of an impeachment trial - something is wrong. And 'though we can only guess at what the Republicans are covering up, or if it's more a matter of just hurrying to the acquittal, there is still that little matter of constitutional negligence that is being proven to us right before our eyes.

That being said, I am glad for the fast track... We all knew what McConnell's Senate was going to do, we just needed them to actually do it so we can charge them later. (more on that in a minute). So the way I see it, the sooner they wrap up, the sooner we can move on. Our best opportunity to kick Trump out has always been the 2020 election anyway.

Now, about that charging of McConnell's Senate. What a lot of people aren't noticing is that neglect is an impeachable offense that applies very much to McConnell and the Republicans for as I say, "not taking the impeachment seriously" AND for shirking their constitutional duty to weigh the evidence.

So, expect to hear some chatter in the coming months about impeaching and removing multiple members of Senate. It may be enough to give all of Congress to the Democrats so they can start passing laws to stump the expansion of conservative power in the courts. ;)

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

But you are predicting an upset,...Yes?

straightUp Loc: California

4430... The House *IS* putting forth the evidence and the Senate is refusing to look at it. Do you see the fine point here?

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

yes the upset would be Trump getting reelected

roy

My question is if Mr Roberts says he will allow witnesses what will YOU say you know he has that right. If he does will he become the next SCUM BAG for you bunch of scum bag people that don't want to hear the truth..

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

They have produced all the evidence they had all ready !

Seems to they want the Senate to get more witness's and that's what they refuse to look at !

straightUp Loc: California

Roy... I WANT witnesses to be allowed. Did you not understand my post?

straightUp Loc: California

Says who?



I think you might be a little confused my friend. (Easy to do - impeachments don't happen often).

The House and the Senate don't just have their own separate trials with their own separate exhibits. The Constitution is very clear about this. There is only one trial and it happens in the Senate but only if the House decides to prosecute... so the House has a hearing to consider the evidence and decide if there is a case for impeachment.

...and they did, so NOW, it's the constitutional duty for the Senate to try the case, which means ALL the evidence needs to be considered again, this time by the Senate so THEY can make the final judgement.

Also, investigations are ongoing, so new evidence is being revealed. So if there is new evidence it SHOULD be considered in the trial. ALL the evidence should be considered - if not, the Senate is negligent. Period. It doesn't matter if it was already considered in the hearing by the House... The House isn't making the final judgement - Senate is... so they need to consider all the evidence.

Period. ;)