Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[SoyLeche]

Yes. It was an utter waste of time.

With Nixon...which was bipartisan and he may or may not have been convicted (he definitely would have been impeached) it wasn't a waste of time, and I can only honor him for resigning before he put us through all that. With Clinton, which was also not an entire waste of time because there WAS some bipartisan action...(as a die hard conservative, for instance, I would have voted for acquittal even though he absolutely was guilty as charged of real crimes....for which he was punished elsewhere). Johnson's impeachment was more partisan than not; it might have been a waste of time...

but this one? Purest partisan. Everything about it was about Democrats wanting to reverse the previous election and to mess with the next one. They knew very well that the only thing calling witnesses would do is get them more time to spin. There was NO chance whatsoever that witnesses would have changed the vote, and they knew it going in. That's not why they wanted witnesses; more time to bloviate.

I would have liked to see witnesses, personally...EXCEPT for the obvious reason the Dems wanted them. As it is, better that we cut the process short and just get on with stuff.

If you really want Trump out of office, y'all have nine months. Vote "agin" him.

No more or less a waste of time than the Hillary investigations before the 2016 elections. Both sets of investigations had the same goals and probably the same outcome.

 

[SoyLeche]

But...but...but...we paid for this debacle...(and they never said such a thing as you stated).

We pay for a lot of useless crap. I'm okay with a couple dollars going towards this.

And what did I say they "said"? I'm infering their goals, not repeating them.

 

[dianaiad]

Exactly.

Quite the opposite. What is it with supporters of Trump and reading comprehension?

With all due respect, SZ, someone's different perception of 'what is,' doesn't mean that THEY are the ones who have reading comprehension problems.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. It was an utter waste of time.

With Nixon...which was bipartisan and he may or may not have been convicted (he definitely would have been impeached) it wasn't a waste of time, and I can only honor him for resigning before he put us through all that. With Clinton, which was also not an entire waste of time because there WAS some bipartisan action...(as a die hard conservative, for instance, I would have voted for acquittal even though he absolutely was guilty as charged of real crimes....for which he was punished elsewhere). Johnson's impeachment was more partisan than not; it might have been a waste of time...

but this one? Purest partisan. Everything about it was about Democrats wanting to reverse the previous election and to mess with the next one. They knew very well that the only thing calling witnesses would do is get them more time to spin. There was NO chance whatsoever that witnesses would have changed the vote, and they knew it going in. That's not why they wanted witnesses; more time to bloviate.

I would have liked to see witnesses, personally...EXCEPT for the obvious reason the Dems wanted them. As it is, better that we cut the process short and just get on with stuff.

If you really want Trump out of office, y'all have nine months. Vote "agin" him.

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.

 

[BSM1]

We pay for a lot of useless crap. I'm okay with a couple dollars going towards this.

And what did I say they "said"? I'm infering their goals, not repeating them.

One thing you and I can agree on is that the Democrat House of Reps is certainly useless crap...

 

[England my lionheart]

The testimony in the House was enough, but the Republicans claimed that was not enough and at the same time denied witnesses for the Senate trial. Blatant hypocrisy.

Seems that way.

 

[Salvador]

Excuse my ignorance of impeachment but if your not guilty as charged the witnesses shouldn't be a problem unless you are guilty.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With all due respect, SZ, someone's different perception of 'what is,' doesn't mean that THEY are the ones who have reading comprehension problems.

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

 

[BSM1]

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.

If this is what you believe than I feel you have been seriously mislead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if President Trump were to have done what was 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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If this is what you believe than I feel you have been seriously mislead.

How so? Where am I wrong?

 

[BSM1]

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

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.

 

[England my lionheart]

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.

Oh ok so is it normal to lean on another country by a p.o.t.u.s of the USA without the government s knowledge?.

 

[Salvador]

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

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

 

[dianaiad]

No more or less a waste of time than the Hillary investigations before the 2016 elections. Both sets of investigations had the same goals and probably the same outcome.

Possibly.

However, I have to think that what Hillary did was demonstrably against the law, and nobody has even hinted that what Trump did was.

In Hillary's case, the whole thing came down to 'well, she did it, but do we let her get away with it because stupidity is a pretty good excuse?"

Or in Clinton's case: "we know he did it. He admits he did it. There's no question but that he's guilty of lying to congress...but do we fire him over it?" The answer was no.

And the answer is, as it should be, 'no' in this case, too. Especially since there is no accusation of any actual crime, the nation is so incredibly divided, and we can vote him out on his assets this coming fall anyway.

It's not as if....as in Clinton's case...we have to put up with him for four years if we don't kick him out of office right this minute. You CAN vote him out.

 

[columbus]

We'll see....

And the point is, we WILL see. The American PEOPLE get to make the decision now, as it should be.

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

 

[BSM1]

Oh ok so is it normal to lean on another country by a p.o.t.u.s of the USA without the government s knowledge?.

Happens in every administration of every government in the free--or otherwise--world.

 

[sun rise]

In the American justice system, an accused person's guilt must be proven rather than an accused person's innocence needs to be proven!

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

 

[sun rise]

Happens in every administration of every government in the free--or otherwise--world.

The difference of course is corrupt intent.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes. It was an utter waste of time.

With Nixon...which was bipartisan and he may or may not have been convicted (he definitely would have been impeached) it wasn't a waste of time, and I can only honor him for resigning before he put us through all that. With Clinton, which was also not an entire waste of time because there WAS some bipartisan action...(as a die hard conservative, for instance, I would have voted for acquittal even though he absolutely was guilty as charged of real crimes....for which he was punished elsewhere). Johnson's impeachment was more partisan than not; it might have been a waste of time...

but this one? Purest partisan. Everything about it was about Democrats wanting to reverse the previous election and to mess with the next one. They knew very well that the only thing calling witnesses would do is get them more time to spin. There was NO chance whatsoever that witnesses would have changed the vote, and they knew it going in. That's not why they wanted witnesses; more time to bloviate.

I would have liked to see witnesses, personally...EXCEPT for the obvious reason the Dems wanted them. As it is, better that we cut the process short and just get on with stuff.

If you really want Trump out of office, y'all have nine months. Vote "agin" him.

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.

But whether it was a waste of time (due to the Trump Party's stonewalling) or not, it was necessary. The alternative - to just let him get away with it without even subjecting him to impeachment - would have been unacceptable. The Democrats can't just sit back and not investigate when the President refuses to release lawfully appropriated aid - Congress controls the purse, not the Executive. And they can't just sit back and do nothing when the President refuses to cooperate with a Congressional investigation - particularly an impeachment investigation. Investigating the Executive, and impeaching the president, are two more key Constitutional powers of Congress - not Trump.

Finally, they can't sit back and let the President marshal the might of US foreign policy and taxpayer dollars, to support his own political campaign against a leading Democratic candidate. If Trump wanted Biden investigated for legitimate reasons, he should have used legitimate means (like his own Justice Dept.). If he wanted to investigate Biden for political purposes, that's fine too - but it should have been done using Trump campaign funds, not US foreign aid and not US diplomacy. The Democrats would have been foolish to allow that to go on unanswered.

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.

Now, what would change this picture a bit, is if the Trump Party decides to censure the President or continue to pursue documents related to how and why our money was withheld. So, consequences - but not removal from office. I can respect that. I suspect they prefer to do nothing.

May I remind you that at least two (that we know of) leading Republican candidates for President in the last election cycle, came out and said publicly, that Trump needed to be impeached for this behavior (though perhaps not convicted, they said - a position that I respect). John Kasich and Carly Fiorina. I strongly suspect more would have agreed, simply on the merits of the case, if Trump wasn't so popular within their voting base.

By the way, Trump is charged with violating several laws under the umbrella of the articles of impeachment: obstruction of Congress, the Logan Act, the impoundment act, the whisleblower laws and FEC laws forbidding soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign government in connection with a political campaign. Trump has repeatedly flaunted such laws, this wasn't a one-off mistake .. he's going to keep doing this stuff. Impeachment may make him think twice next time, even if he was acquitted - or it may not - but doing nothing is not the right answer.

The right answer would have been for the Trump Party to man up, and stand up for what is right.