PeterS wrote:
Just Saying...
uuuuuhhhhhhh Dude...........
You do understand that evidence and witnesses were presented in the "House of Representatives."
It's on those facts that and impeachment is made, in the House............You get that.......Right?
If there weren't any witnesses or evidence presented in the House, then just what was the Impeachment based on?
This may come as a shock to you, but, in this country we are a nation of checks and balances.
The House gathers the evidence and based on that evidence, makes a decision to charge the president with impeachment.
That evidence is then passed on to the Senate were the evidence and witnesses, gathered by the House, is gone over and evaluated by the Senate.
If the House didn't gather evidence and didn't call all the witnesses needed, then it is not the job of the Senate to do the work of the House.
In fact in this nation of separated powers, the Senate would have no right to do the duty of the House.
Didn't Nancy say that they had overwhelming evidence presented to the Senate?
Yes, I believe she did and she wasn't the only one.
But, once they got to the Senate, all of a sudden they didn't have evidence or witnesses. So, how did they conclude to impeach a president on evidence and witnesses they didn't have?
You can't impeach a president unless you have the evidence and witnesses needed to prove your case, in order to get it to the Senate.
What happened to the overwhelming evidence?