Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[sun rise]

I am sorry, but you are terribly wrong. I was a life long Republican until Trump came along. He won the primaries by appealing to the worst part of the party. Mainly those that hate. And this was very useful in showing how low the party has sunk under his leadership. No thought of the future. No fiscal conservation. Just give me what you can now.

I'm a Democrat partly because the Trump party which replaced the Republican party is even more borrow and spend than the Republican party was.

The only hope we have for fiscal sanity is to elect a Democratic president and flip the Senate this November. Otherwise, I'm sure we'll see attempts to make the deficit and resultant debt greater even faster.

 

[Milton Platt]

Watching the impeachment from an outside perspective I can't get my head around voting on whether to allow witnesses,surely if someone is either guilty or innocent they are essential in proving the accused either way,please explain.

Unlikely.........Trump correctly prophesied that he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and it wouldn't matter to his followers. It almost puts them in the category of those who followed Jim Jones.

 

[England my lionheart]

Impeachment is not a criminal trial as has been pointed out many many many times.

So the impeachment was about Trump's integrity?,I can just about remember Watergate and seeing Nixon just before he resigned,he looked so guilty.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As far as I know, we still don't have a single document from the White House simply explaining why he held up the aid - who made the decision, and when. WH counsel literally couldn't even answer that question in the Senate trial. The Trump Party doesn't want to know. That's not just partisan. That's walking away from the checks and balances of the Constitution.

EDIT: Actually, I should clarify. The Trump Party either doesn't want to know, or they know and just don't care. It's hard to tell which and seems to depend on the individual Trump Party Senator who is performing the mental gymnastics.

 

[England my lionheart]

Unlikely.........Trump correctly prophesied that he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and it wouldn't matter to his followers. It almost puts them in the category of those who followed Jim Jones.

That's how it looks from here.

 

[BSM1]

The difference of course is corrupt intent.

Which is totally indeterminable in this case...

 

[SoyLeche]

Even if President Trump were to have done what he has been accused of doing by the House impeachment managers, Trump still would not have done any impeachable offenses.

He was impeached, so by definition they were impeachable offenses.

 

[columbus]

Which is totally indeterminable in this case...

Largely due to Trump's experienced and determined obstruction.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

When the immoral and often illegal acts of Trump have been explained countless times attributing it to poor reading comprehension is rather generous.

When the position of the OTHER side has been explained countless times, attributing disagreement to poor reading comprehension is rather generous.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, the last time, we elected Hillary Clinton by millions.
Tom

No, we didn't. There is a REASON the electoral college is in place, and it is a very good one.

 

[Ponder This]

Watching the impeachment from an outside perspective I can't get my head around voting on whether to allow witnesses,surely if someone is either guilty or innocent they are essential in proving the accused either way,please explain.

I can understand how a strong belief in the need for more witnesses might confuse people. However, a vote of this sort would likely have to occur as a practical necessity. Why?

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution prevents trials from continuing indefinitely (a Speedy Trial is part of Due Process). So there is always a time limit for a trial and in order to keep a trial going, a continuance must be passed. Why wouldn't you always vote to continue if there are more witnesses?

A trial isn't a fact-finding expedition to acquire the evidence you need to get a conviction. If your evidence was insufficient to begin with, you can't start a trial and then keep it going until you find evidence that proves your case! This is why it is so vital to get all the evidence you need BEFORE a trial starts.

 

[SoyLeche]

When the position of the OTHER side has been explained countless times, attributing disagreement to poor reading comprehension is rather generous.

 

[dianaiad]

Impeachment was partisan, and a waste of time. But you are missing why. The reason is because one side was doing its job, acting as oversight and a check on the Executive, while the Trump Party has made a choice to acquiesce to the popular (within their party) bully who leads them.

Uh huh.

"I am standing for the right, being firm and holding my principals.

YOU are being obstructive, stubborn and bowing to pressure from people who don't know their asses from their elbows."

Gotcha.

.........didn't read the rest of the post. Should I have?

 

[columbus]

No, we didn't. There is a REASON the electoral college is in place, and it is a very good one.

Sure we did.

The problem is that you seem to think POTUS is an elected position. It isn't. Many people are unable to grasp that simple fact.
Tom

 

[SoyLeche]

I can understand how a strong belief in the need for more witnesses might confuse people. However, a vote of this sort would likely have to occur as a practical necessity. Why?

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution prevents trials from continuing indefinitely (a Speedy Trial is part of Due Process). So there is always a time limit for a trial and in order to keep a trial going, a continuance must be passed. Why wouldn't you always vote to continue if there are more witnesses?

A trial isn't a fact-finding expedition to acquire the evidence you need to get a conviction. If your evidence was insufficient to begin with, you can't start a trial and then keep it going until you find evidence that proves your case! This is why it is so vital to get all the evidence you need BEFORE a trial starts.

once again - impeachment and removal from office is not a criminal or civil trial. It is a political process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When the position of the OTHER side has been explained countless times, attributing disagreement to poor reading comprehension is rather generous.

I am sorry, but the other side has been repeatedly refuted. Did you forget how your claims about the Republicans that stormed a meeting during the House impeachment process were shown to be wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, we didn't. There is a REASON the electoral college is in place, and it is a very good one.

The supposed reason was not why Trump won the race. Look at the results. The small states that were overly represented played a very small part in the process. What happened was that Trump was a better campaginer. He won by a narrow margin in more "toss up" states that Hillary did. That was not the purpose of the framers of the Constitution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm a Democrat partly because the Trump party which replaced the Republican party is even more borrow and spend than the Republican party was.

The only hope we have for fiscal sanity is to elect a Democratic president and flip the Senate this November. Otherwise, I'm sure we'll see attempts to make the deficit and resultant debt greater even faster.

Yes, that was the only reason that I held out so long as a Republican myself. I have strong worries that Trump will crash the economy again before he is done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But this is NOT what he is being impeached on. Surely you can see through this farce perpetrated by those who simply hate Trump and anyone who agrees with the POTUS. This is nothing more than an attempt to overthrow an election.

Of course it is. Technically trying to use federal dollars as a bribe breaks various election financing laws at the least. And it is a "high crime" of the sort that the framers of the Constitution worried about. One of their number one concerns was foreign intervention in elections and that was what Trump asked for.

 

[Salvador]

Even if President Trump were to have done what he has been accused of doing by the House impeachment managers, Trump still would not have done any impeachable offenses.

Why not? That seems to be a rather strange claim.

He was impeached, so by definition they were impeachable offenses.

Perhaps, the Democratic House impeachment managers might consider Trump's alleged abuse of power as being an impeachable offense, but the Republican controlled Senate trial might just consider Trump's alleged abuse of power as being a non-impeachable offense.