Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[SoyLeche]

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.

The senate has no say on impeachment. Their role is to decide whether the impeachment warrants removal from office. Either way, he was impeached.

 

[Salvador]

The senate has no say on impeachment. Their role is to decide whether the impeachment warrants removal from office. Either way, he was impeached.

Of course, Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives, but the Senate can vote against removing Trump from office on the basis of his alleged abuse of power is not worthy of him being deposed from power. ...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not really. Trump's guilt has become even more apparent and the fact that over 70% of the nation wanted to hear from witnesses and the Republicans voted no screams "cover-up". This action will almost certainly harm the Republicans in the upcoming election. They made the error of supporting a corrupt President and they are likely to pay a heavy price for it.

The problem for the Republicans, I think, is that they were on the horns of a dilemma. Either they had to call witnesses and evidence which they knew for a certainty would say Trump what they say he did (and perhaps more), and then vote not to impeach anyway (ala Clinton). Or they could say, as I think happened, that since what he's accused of doing is not going to be considered impeachable anyway, then we may as well not have witnesses.

Both of those come with a downside for the Republicans. In the first, the witnesses definitely taint Trump directly, and in the second, the Republicans taint themselves with the potential that voters will think "coverup." And I suspect that they simply thought the latter would be less damaging, over-all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It sure seemed apparent even before the impeachment.

In the UK there would be a vote of "no confidence" in parliament but if Republicans have a majority I guess that's a no go.

The lovely thing about a parliamentary no confidence vote (as we have in Canada as well) requires a simple majority. In the US, it requires a super majority, making it extremely difficult to achieve.

 

[SoyLeche]

Of course, Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives, but the Senate can vote against removing Trump from office on the basis of his alleged abuse of power is not worthy of him being deposed from power. ...

Yes

 

[Salvador]

The problem for the Republicans, I think, is that they were on the horns of a dilemma. Either they had to call witnesses and evidence which they knew for a certainty would say Trump what they say he did (and perhaps more), and then vote not to impeach anyway (ala Clinton). Or they could say, as I think happened, that since what he's accused of doing is not going to be considered impeachable anyway, then we may as well not have witnesses.

Both of those come with a downside for the Republicans. In the first, the witnesses definitely taint Trump directly, and in the second, the Republicans taint themselves with the potential that voters will think "coverup." And I suspect that they simply thought the latter would be less damaging, over-all.

The Republican controlled Senate can indeed consider Trump's alleged abuse of power as not being severe enough of an offense that'd warrant Trump's removal from office. Hence, there'd be no need for witnesses in the impeachment case brought to trial in the Senate from the Democratic controlled House impeachment managers. ...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, it proves that the Biden's are suspected of shady dealings.

"The Bidens" or Hunter Biden? If I'm not mistaken, Hunter is a grown man, an adult, capable in law of making his own decisions for himself, and without seeking his father's permission -- or even against his father's strongest advice and warning. And the evidence is clear that in fact, Joe Biden did caution his son, asking him, "are you sure you know what you're doing?"

How would you, as a father, force your own adult son not to do what you don't want him to? Take him to court (which court)? Tie him up in the basement? Shoot him?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Republican controlled Senate can indeed consider Trump's alleged abuse of power as not being severe enough of an offense that'd warrant Trump's removal from office. Hence, there'd be no need for witnesses in the impeachment case brought to trial in the Senate from the Democratic controlled House impeachment managers. ...

The Republicans can use any rationalization that they wish. The problem is that there is an election coming up an not everybody is a Kool-Aid drinker.

 

[Salvador]

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.

There are many Trump haters who not only hate Donald J.Trump as well as us Trump followers, but they also seem to hate capitalism and America being the most powerful and prosperous nation in history.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm afraid that the memory of voters is too short.

In this one particular instance, I think this may not prove to be a deciding factor. Trump has been so disruptive, so divisive, so palpably awful, that I think that will carry through to the polling booth. The fact is, 95% of Democrats and over 70% of Independents (and even 49% of Republicans) wanted witnesses in this instance, because I think they finally decided they wanted the "truth." That adds up, over all, to 75% of Americans. That's a very big number, and it represents people who are going to carry the failure to get that truth all the way to the polls in November.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Republican controlled Senate can indeed consider Trump's alleged abuse of power as not being severe enough of an offense that'd warrant Trump's removal from office. Hence, there'd be no need for witnesses in the impeachment case brought to trial in the Senate from the Democratic controlled House impeachment managers. ...

Yet it may be that there is a cost associated with that. My point was the dilemma Trump's defenders faced by his actions -- that either course of action was going to be costly in terms of voter support in November.

 

[Watchmen]

To compare the impeachment trial to a legal civil proceeding, we can say Trump was granted summary judgment. That’s a slam dunk win. Those who don’t understand procedure will try to argue against Trump and speak of “cover ups,” but they’d be wrong. Also, anyone who thinks the GOP will take a hit this election is sorely out of touch with an enormous block of American voters.

 

[Salvador]

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.

President Obama broke campaign finance laws, and the Republican controlled House of Representatives never had the audacity to draft articles of impeachment against President Obama.

Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000

 

[Salvador]

Yet it may be that there is a cost associated with that. My point was the dilemma Trump's defenders faced by his actions -- that either course of action was going to be costly in terms of voter support in November.

Fortunately for us Trump followers, Trump is unlikely to be seriously challenged by a strong political opponent who'd have a good chance of defeating Trump's re-election bid.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm not even American -- merely your northern neighbour. But as a close neighbour, I'm obviously very interested. And I have to tell you that I do not see this as a "perpetrated by those who simply hate Trump and anyone who agrees with the POTUS." I see it as the actions of people who are seriously -- and with very good reason -- concerned for the future of the nation. Trump, though supporters cannot see it, is an enormously divisive influence. He is changing -- practically by himself -- the very nature of the American political dialogue. For the worse.

"A republic -- if you can keep it." Remember that phrase. I personally think you are losing it.

 

[Salvador]

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.

Anybody whom Trump were to shoot on Fifth Avenue, would likely be somebody who'd deserve to be shot.

 

[McBell]

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.

Given that the Republicans have flat out stated they were going to acquit long before the House even got the impeachment started, I say the Republicans are merely trying to get it over with as soon as possible.
I mean, look at all the golf they are missing being tied to a boring *** trial that they have no intentions of paying attention to.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Please check out this video:
Trump lawyer Sekulow says House managers' call for witnesses is a 'smokescreen'

It's actually very interesting to consider that Pat Cipollone, the lead attorney in the Senate trial, could also very well be a witness. It is alleged in Bolton's book that he was in the room when Bolton claimed he was asked by Trump to help with his efforts to dig up dirt on the Bidens.

Now, this brings up an interesting question: should Cipollone not have recused himself from arguing about whether witnesses were required, when he himself was potentially one of those witnesses?

Trump's lead attorney in the impeachment trial could also be a witness, according to Bolton's book

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Anybody whom Trump were to shoot on Fifth Avenue, would likely be somebody who'd deserve to be shot.

That is freaking outrageous, and you should be totally ashamed of yourself!

Your worship of Trump has now turned him into judge, jury and executioner! Will you make him God next?

 

[McBell]

Fortunately for us Trump followers, Trump is unlikely to be seriously challenged by a strong political opponent who'd have a good chance of defeating Trump's re-election bid.

Not that it would matter anyway.
I mean, he already lost the popular vote once...