The facts, and an honest and accurate representation of the facts, is biased towards liberals... and certainly unavailable to trump, his lawyers and mojoman.
This is trump supporters, er, fox news reporting on the senate impeachment... "boring" and "trump supporters prefer to have fox news tell them what to think."
Yes, they can rest their case on that among all the other lies and distortion. It might work politically to some degree. But politically, the easier and simpler message tend to win out. Every single past impeachment trials have witnesses. There is an easy politically explanation of why Trump and the GOP aren't allowing new witnesses. Trump is as guilty as heck. ps. Who knows - if it looks very bad politically, McConnel might just gamble with certain witnesses. As for the court settling on executive privilege by now... It would have taken months in lengthy court fights that would not be done by now. Guess who else brought up the idea that calling witnesses such as Bolton would be a lengthy fight over executive privilege - Mitch McConnel. But McConnel is wrong and he's too smart to not know he's distorting. The Chief Justice is right there in the room to make the decision on allowing testimonies vs executive privilege. The Senate trial is the most efficient place to call up these witnesses with direct interactions with Trump. Spoiler Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday defended his controversial resolution of impeachment trial rules as “fair” and “evenhanded” while castigating Democrats for demanding to hear from witnesses not called during the House’s investigation. Speaking from the Senate floor, McConnell said his rules resolution, which states that the chamber can consider whether to call new witnesses after opening arguments and questions, was the same framework passed by all 100 Senators to govern the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. “These are potential witnesses the House managers themselves declined to hear from. Whom the House itself declined to pursue through the legal system during its own inquiry, “McConnell said. “If they wanted witnesses who would trigger legal battles over presidential privilege, they could’ve had those fights. But the Chairmen of the House Intel Committee and House Judiciary Committee chose not to. They decided their inquiry was finished and moved right ahead. The House chose not to pursue the same witnesses they apparently would now like the Senate to pre-commit to pursuing ourselves” The Kentucky Senator said that House Democrats were essentially asking the Senate to supplement their investigation, which could trigger the same legal battles over executive privilege. “Some of the proposed new witnesses include executive branch officials whose communications with the President and other officials lies at the very core of the president’s constitutional privilege,” McConnell stated. “Pursuing those witnesses could indefinitely delay the Senate trial and draw our body into a protracted and complex legal fight over presidential privilege. Such litigation could potentially have permanent repercussions for the separation of powers and the institution of the presidency.” The Majority Leader only has to convince 51 of his GOP colleagues to follow his lead to dictate the terms of the proceeding, but Supreme Court litigator and former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal pointed out that McConnell’s argument “contradicts itself.” First, he notes that the House never “declined to hear from witnesses,” they made a reasoned decision against litigating every witness because they “didn’t want to get bogged down in long court fight.” McConnell then relies on the same logic to conclude that new witnesses should not be called in the Senate. “He says that would lead to a lengthy court fight and generate destructive precedent. This is precisely what he said should have happened in the House! Makes zero sense,” Katyal wrote. He also said that such an argument is null in the Senate, as Chief Justice John Roberts may rule on issues of executive privilege quickly during the trial. “McConnell argument thus boomerangs. It demonstrates that he will do anything, and say anything, to try to prevent the American people from learning the truth,” Katyal continued. “It should be simple- If the President’s behavior was perfect & beautiful, why are they so afraid of documents+witnesses?”
trump's (epstein's and oj's) lawyer dershowitz, when confronted with past statements saying impeachable offenses do not require criminal offenses but rather high crimes and misdemeanors could include other presidential misconduct, backpedals and tries to claim they were off-the-cuff statements... But here's another interview where he steps through presidential misconduct as impeachable offenses... When you are so attracted to the media limelight you are bound to have video proof of your hypocritical statements...
What are you basing this on that court rulings would have been done by now? There are cases still tied up in court and others are just now being appealed. Do you think Trump would abide by a single ruling and not gone appealed until he went to the Supreme court?
Ehh more than anything he has become intellectually lazy and is not used to having his opinions or claims questioned. He has become accustomed to bullying and getting his way over the last 25 years.
So, I think any charade that the case wasn't merited and that Republicans were trying for a fair and evenhanded trial has gone out the window. The Democrats did a good job of making it clear that the GOP knows Trump did wrong, probably broke the law, and is not only okay with it, but they are also largely complicit in trying to covering it up and keep Americans as ignorant as possible of what happened.
Where does it say that? This is not a criminal trial in which guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Senators themselves decide who has the burden of proof and to what degree. I still wonder what might have happened had they gone the court route and put the pressure on the Supreme Court to hear the case asap. Maybe the SC would resist and make it go by the regular channels. It'd be a big blow to the SC's reputation, but they're more insulated from political fallout than other bodies. Or maybe they'd hear it and decide in Trump's favor, which would be a huge blow to the impeachment and to the power of the Legislature. Or, maybe they'd have heard the case on an expedited basis and forced officials to testify, but they still would have to have some carve-out for executive privilege. Given all the uncertainty and risk, I'm not surprised by the path they took instead. But I wonder if the other one would have been more fruitful in the end.
On the Obstruction of Congress charge, it's never been disputed that the White House wouldn't comply with subpoenas. The question has always been whether he has the authority to.
It would seem the Nixon precedent would suggest Trump doesn’t have that right to withhold evidence. It seems crazy to suggest that the president can withhold evidence in the context of impeachment. But the GOP shrewdly made up a whole new level immunity that would have to get dragged through the courts to overturn.
And yesterday, every single one of the GOP senators said no, Congress shouldn't have the authority to. Yea, this is going to play well with independent voters (hint: 70% of independents want to hear from witnesses). Trump just reminded everyone he's hiding and obstructing. The GOP senators must be pulling their hair out today.
The problem is, I think many american voters are too lazy to care. If people would wake up to the corruption in Washington, most of these people would be out of jobs. A lot of Republicans, specifically, at this next election.
