Should the Senate Allow Witnesses Be Called During the Impeachment Trial?

[volinbham]

You make a point for citing criminal code. The House managers schedule today, Thursday, is supposed to link events to specific statutes. So before you go knee-jerk negative, maybe you should watch the prosecution present it's case. GAO has stated that withholding the aid to Ukraine was illegal. That's GAO talking, not me. So maybe you know more about federal statutes governing military aid than GAO, but I doubt it. So why are you blowing off at the mouth before the prosecution presents that part of it's case? Have you been reading the radio? We've been in the military aid business for a long time. Do you think there are no statutes governing that process? Is that what you really think? We'll see.

illegal (violating a statute) =/= crime. there is a difference between criminal and civil code.

the GAO made similar findings about the last administration 7 times - did Obama commit at least 7 crimes?

no where in the articles is the alleging of any criminal code violations.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I tried to get that simple question answered , I’m still waiting .

To take it to the next rational and reasonable level, since they are in competition for the guy's office over which they sit in judgment, shouldn't they recuse themselves?

It is the definition of kangaroo court,

 

[Vol Main]

Do you truly believe Liz and Bernie are impartial?

No, they are not impartial. But I do think they are capable of making fact based decisions.

 

[Vol Main]

illegal (violating a statute) =/= crime. there is a difference between criminal and civil code.

the GAO made similar findings about the last administration 7 times - did Obama commit at least 7 crimes?

no where in the articles is the alleging of any criminal code violations.

I suspect that the violations would involve bureaucratic law, not civil law. Why don't we watch the prosecution's case before arguing it's merits? They are scheduled to link facts to statutes, today. BTW, the House Speaker asserted bribery, which I believe is covered in criminal statutes. A quid pro quo was confirmed by testimony in the House. So again, I think we need to wait for the prosecution's case before speaking as if we already know it.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No, they are not impartial. But I do think they are capable of making fact based decisions.

So they should be able to sit in judgement of the man that occupies the office they seek.... needless to say, the most powerful office in the solar system.

wow.

 

[hog88]

No, they are not impartial. But I do think they are capable of making fact based decisions.

What on earth makes you think that?

 

[Vol Main]

What on earth makes you think that?

Well, I did not read it on the radio.

 

[Vol Main]

So they should be able to sit in judgement of the man that occupies the office they seek.... needless to say, the most powerful office in the solar system.

wow.

We must all sit in judgment. That is our job, as voters. But first, we need to watch the prosecution and defence present their case.

 

[0nelilreb]

We must all sit in judgment. That is our job, as voters. But first, we need to watch the prosecution and defence present their case.

I won’t lie just to make a case , if I was in a position to become the most powerful person arguably on the planet , and had the opportunity to remove my opponent , it would sway my opinion and impact my vote . Human nature . I also don’t for one second believe the ones that are running for POTUS can be impartial. That’s just silly to assume they will or can be .

 

[volinbham]

I suspect that the violations would involve bureaucratic law, not civil law. Why don't we watch the prosecution's case before arguing it's merits? They are scheduled to link facts to statutes, today. BTW, the House Speaker asserted bribery, which I believe is covered in criminal statutes. A quid pro quo was confirmed by testimony in the House. So again, I think we need to wait for the prosecution's case before speaking as if we already know it.

1. bureaucratic law (not sure that's even a thing) isn't criminal law.

2. the House Speaker may have asserted bribery but the articles of impeachment did not include any such charge.

 

[lawgator1]

illegal (violating a statute) =/= crime. there is a difference between criminal and civil code.

the GAO made similar findings about the last administration 7 times - did Obama commit at least 7 crimes?

no where in the articles is the alleging of any criminal code violations.

It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty.

You don’t need a technical crime.

 

[Vol Main]

1. bureaucratic law (not sure that's even a thing) isn't criminal law.

2. the House Speaker may have asserted bribery but the articles of impeachment did not include any such charge.

Oh, it is a thing. Our legal system is divided into civil, bureaucratic, and criminal law. Bureaucratic law is decided by judge's in bureaucratic courts, which govern specific areas of the law. For example, a produce company in California with a claim against a vender in Tennessee would petition a P.A.C.A. court for redress, because it governs interstate commerce of produce. There are all kinds of.bureaucratic courts, most of which none of us have ever heard of.

I have this crazy idea, and I seem to be the only person here to think it. We should watch the prosecution and defense present their cases before arguing their cases amongst ourselves. We know some of it, but there is a lot we just do not know. The articles of impeachment overarch the specific violations which should be alleged in the proceedings, today. Ima watch it.

 

[volinbham]

It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty.

You don’t need a technical crime.

not my claim - Vol Main commented that Schiff laid out all the "crimes" of Trump. I'm pointing out that no crimes have been laid out.

House could impeach for any damn thing they want to.

 

[Vol Main]

not my claim - Vol Main commented that Schiff laid out all the "crimes" of Trump. I'm pointing out that no crimes have been laid out.

House could impeach for any damn thing they want to.

Actually, I said that Schiff announced that for his schedule, but I never saw it happen.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

We must all sit in judgment. That is our job, as voters. But first, we need to watch the prosecution and defence present their case.

The prosecution has been saying the exact same thing for 2 days. They have no case. And you are a lying stack of **** if you say you haven't made up your mind about all this. He will be acquitted, and the democrats will have wasted millions of dollars and time they could have been doing things for the country. I hope the voters remember this in November and curb stomp them into oblivion.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

not my claim - Vol Main commented that Schiff laid out all the "crimes" of Trump. I'm pointing out that no crimes have been laid out.

House could impeach for any damn thing they want to.

They did. Orange Man Bad... Orange man beat the most qualified woman to ever run for president. Impeach the ************.

 

[Vol Main]

Right now, Lindsey Graham is making hay about a board member of Burisma making three million dollars. No concern does he express about the countless board members throughout this country making far more than that. Does he compare three million to the tens of millions? Senator Scott raked off hundreds of millions from a company fined over six hundred million for fraudulent billing of Medicare, that is from over charging the old and the poor. The reality is that Trump never demanded an anti-corruption program in Ukraine. All he demanded in exchange for our military aid was a public announcement for an investigation of the Bidens, a media announcement, a brief show that he could use in his own political campaign.

 

[Vol Main]

Right now, Lindsey Graham is making hay about a board member of Burisma making three million dollars. No concern does he express about the countless board members throughout this country making far more than that. Does he compare three million to the tens of millions? Senator Scott raked off hundreds of millions from a company fined over six hundred million for fraudulent billing of Medicare, that is from over charging the old and the poor. The reality is that Trump never demanded an anti-corruption program in Ukraine. All he demanded in exchange for our military aid was a public announcement for an investigation of the Bidens, a media announcement, a brief show that he could use in his own political campaign.

 

[37L1]

Right now, Lindsey Graham is making hay about a board member of Burisma making three million dollars. No concern does he express about the countless board members throughout this country making far more than that. Does he compare three million to the tens of millions? Senator Scott raked off hundreds of millions from a company fined over six hundred million for fraudulent billing of Medicare, that is from over charging the old and the poor. The reality is that Trump never demanded an anti-corruption program in Ukraine. All he demanded in exchange for our military aid was a public announcement for an investigation of the Bidens, a media announcement, a brief show that he could use in his own political campaign.

Were any of their fathers Vice President of the US and point man for the administration in Ukraine, using his position to benefit their son?

- Liah Natas

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

End this farce. No witnesses. Get back to doing what toy were elected to do. Witnesses are not going to change the outcome.

The loony left loses again

 

[DC_Vol]

I’d just tell my chairman he’s going to need to claim that he identifies as a female. Problem solved.

 

[Vol Main]

Were any of their fathers Vice President of the US and point man for the administration in Ukraine, using his position to benefit their son?

- Liah Natas

I have no answer to your specific question, but I do know that the sons, son in law, and daughter of the President are grabbing far more money from other areas.

 

[37L1]

I have no answer to your specific question, but I do know that the sons, son in law, and daughter of the President are grabbing higher numbers in other areas.

Of course you don't have an answer because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I'll help you : No one except Biden. There you go, Ace.

 

[Vol Main]

Of course you don't have an answer because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I'll help you : No one except Biden. There you go, Ace.

But why do you apply your narrative to the family of a Democratic Vice President but not to the family of a Republican President?

 

[37L1]

But why do you apply your narrative to a Democratic Vice President but not to a Republican President?

What has that got to do with this? Connect the dots and show that they are the same thing.