Democrats are having a field day after Trump's
lawyers accidentally made the strongest
case to call witnesses in his impeachment trial
Business Insider,
by
Sonam Sheth
Original Article
Posted By: Harlowe,
1/25/2020 9:52:17 PM
President Donald Trump's defense team consistently drilled down on one key point as it began opening arguments in his impeachment trial on Saturday: the evidence against Trump is limited, at best, and he can't be impeached because the public hasn't heard direct evidence of his misconduct from him or anyone close to him.(Snip)Republicans, meanwhile, say that if the evidence against Trump is as overwhelming as House Democrats say it is, the Senate doesn't need to call new witnesses. But on Saturday, Trump's lawyers seemed to bolster Democrats' case by repeatedly claiming that they hadn't heard from a single witness who had "direct contact" with the president.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
voxpopuli 1/25/2020 9:54:55 PM (No. 298290)
consider this source, "business" insider is a communist rag
36 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
griddog1 1/25/2020 10:02:45 PM (No. 298294)
Wishful thinking on your part. Who wrote this article a six grader?
26 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
DVC 1/25/2020 10:04:52 PM (No. 298295)
BI is a NeverTrump source. I call BS on this wishful thinking.
23 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
vhs68 1/25/2020 10:22:00 PM (No. 298303)
JoeBlow Manchin is a weasel.
11 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
stablemoney 1/25/2020 10:39:25 PM (No. 298313)
Nonsense. The House could have subpoenaed any witness---but the House would have had to vote for impeachment and referred it to the Judiciary Committee, who then could issue subpoenas, which could be challenged in court by the Trump administration. The Democrats did not want to do that, no more witnesses was decided by the Democrats months ago.
18 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
davew 1/25/2020 10:43:28 PM (No. 298316)
Completely untrue. George Sondland had direct contact with the President when he said "I want nothing. No quid pro quo. I just want Zelensky to do the right thing". Ukraine President Zelenky had direct contact with the President on two phone calls where the President and he never even discussed the hold on the aid. The House case was illegal from the start because it lacked judicial enforcement authority based on the Constitutional language that stipulates "the House has the sole authority for impeachment". This means "the House" via a floor vote of all members and not any standing committee or sub-committee.
If you have ever been on jury duty you have received the judges warning that jurors are not to investigate the case on the internet or visit the crime scene or in any way attempt to independently refute or validate the evidence presented to them in court. This is to insure that the defendant is given due process under the Constitution to challenge any evidence against them for truth in a timely way. If the Senate allows another fishing expedition like that attempted to get Brett Kavanaugh it will delay the trial beyond the 2020 election making the Senate verdict moot. I have no doubt the House will initiate a new impeachment inquiry after the Senate acquits the President but unless they get a full House vote it will be another sham like this one was.
17 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
GoodDeal 1/25/2020 10:46:35 PM (No. 298317)
Give it a break Sonam. You are Adumbs mouthpiece get out of here and do something with your life.
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
rada 1/25/2020 10:59:50 PM (No. 298320)
... "how Democrats can, with any moral conscience, continue to defend and pursue their immoral, illegitimate impeachment..." Because the Democrats lack any moral conscience.
12 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Newtsche 1/25/2020 11:19:32 PM (No. 298323)
Don't make the mistake of thinking a bunch of people running around with their hair on fire are having a field day.
8 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Avanti1 1/25/2020 11:35:07 PM (No. 298327)
In America, the burden is on the accuser to prove the allegations being asserted.
The accused, in this case Trump through his legal team, nor the jury, in this case the Senators, have NO responsibility to prove innocence. The House did not prepare their case and now want the Senate to do their job for them.
The Senate should tell the House to pound sand.
13 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
justavoter 1/25/2020 11:37:44 PM (No. 298331)
Here is a clue, the Democrats don’t want witnesses. They just want the vote not to have them. When the Defense rests, McConnell should make a motion for summary judgement and call the vote. Guilty or not Guilty. Don’t even give the Democrats a chance.
11 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
DARling 1/25/2020 11:59:20 PM (No. 298334)
Conversations with the inner circle would be covered by executive privilege. It is also not the president's job to prove his own innocence.
The president needs to somehow shut down the party line that a few Obama hangers-on have established.
5 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
NYbob 1/26/2020 12:02:49 AM (No. 298336)
Maybe at some point slobs from the left will be able to do anything they want from having fake trials to rounding up people they hate for execution, but sorry B.I. and the dope who wrote this nonsense, that day has not arrived. Plus the odds of it ever arriving are slim. It would require a lot of rats to have much more courage and intelligence than they have today. Articles like this are proof that those are things they will never acquire. They are totally dependent on an emotional base of angry, stupid people who only have guts when told what to do by demonic voices in their head or when they are surrounded by cowards in masks.
IF they dare to try overt action with deadly weapons, this will get sorted out much faster than they think.
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Trigger2 1/26/2020 12:42:48 AM (No. 298337)
What a BS article. It was up to the House to find direct evidence and they didn't accomplish that. The House case is made up of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th case rumors, innuendos, and feelings. Just how does that make the case that defense team now needs to correct House errors?
5 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
lakerman1 1/26/2020 3:44:17 AM (No. 298364)
The white house lawyers had to address the obstruction of congress article, and had to do that by pointing out how badly and dishonestly Pelosi and Schiff handled the case.
6 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
ROLFNader 1/26/2020 11:42:34 AM (No. 298768)
No, #2- Business Inside Her has strict rules against hiring anyone younger than 14.
0 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
msjena 1/26/2020 2:05:13 PM (No. 298865)
The time for witnesses has passed. Unless the Democrats want to withdraw the Articles to conduct further investigation, then the vote should be on what the House has submitted.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Harlowe"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Having watched President Trump’s defense team eviscerate the substance of the Democrat’s efforts to invalidate the will of the electorate in the 2016 presidential election to remove President Trump from office, it is beyond comprehension how Democrats can, with any moral conscience, continue to defend and pursue their immoral, illegitimate impeachment proceedings against President Trump.