webfact Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 U.S. Democrats to press for impeachment witnesses throughout trial By David Morgan and Lisa Lambert U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks ahead of a House vote on a War Powers Resolution and amid the stalemate surrounding the impeachment of U.S. President Donald Trump, as she addresses her weekly news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 9, 2020. REUTERS/Tom Brenner WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democrats on Thursday vowed to keep fighting to hear witnesses at President Donald Trump's pending impeachment trial in the Republican-controlled Senate, even as their drive to exact a guarantee ahead of the proceedings appeared futile. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said he will press Republicans accept four witnesses including John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, even if the Senate votes not to accept testimony at the start of the trial to determine whether Trump should be convicted of abusing his power and obstructing Congress over Ukraine. "Those votes at the beginning of the trial will not be the last votes on witnesses and documents. Make no mistake, we will continue to revisit the issue," Schumer said on the Senate floor. Schumer, who needs only four of the 100-seat Senate's 53 Republicans to join Democrats on the witness question, could succeed by pressuring vulnerable Republicans, such as Senator Susan Collins and Senator Cory Gardner, who face reelection in swing states in November. Without witnesses, Democrats fear Senate Republicans could move quickly to dismiss the charges against Trump. But securing witnesses could open up a Pandora's box for Democrats. Trump said he would like to hear from Biden, his businessman son Hunter Biden, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint launched the impeachment inquiry. Trump also said he might try to block Bolton from testifying. "When we start allowing national security advisers to just go up and say whatever they want to say - we can't do that," he told reporters at the White House. The timing of Trump's Senate trial remained up in the air, as House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants to first see Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's trial plan before sending the impeachment articles to the Senate. "I'll send them over when I'm ready, and that will probably be soon," she told a news conference. But with some Senate Democrats calling for the trial to move forward, expectations have risen for a break in the impasse. "I want to give Speaker Pelosi the time to make the right judgment in terms of reporting this to the Senate. I expect it to happen soon," Senator Richard Durbin, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat after Schumer, told Reuters. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told other Republican lawmakers he expects to get the articles as soon as Friday, which would set up a trial for next week, according to a source familiar with the discussion. The Democratic-controlled House impeached Trump in December on charges that he abused his power for personal gain by pressuring Ukraine to announce a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination to face Trump in November's presidential election. The House also charged him with obstructing Congress by directing administration officials and agencies not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. Trump says he did nothing wrong and has dismissed his impeachment as a partisan bid to undo his 2016 election. He is likely to be acquitted, as no Republicans have voiced support for ousting him from office. McConnell wants to consider calling witnesses well after the proceedings begin, and has support from enough Republican lawmakers to adopt his plan without backing from Democrats. McConnell said the Senate would resume its regular legislative business next week if the impeachment articles are not in hand. "This conversation is over," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "We are not ceding our constitutional authority to the partisan designs of the speaker." At a meeting with Trump on Wednesday, McConnell walked the president through his intended impeachment trial format, according to a person familiar with the discussion. But the Republican leader has neither shared text of the planned trial resolution with Trump nor negotiated with the White House on how the measure would be worded, the source said. (Reporting by David Morgan and Lisa Lambert; writing by Susan Heavey; editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Jonathan Oatis and David Gregorio) -- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-10 Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tug Posted January 9, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 9, 2020 Well of course there should be witnesses but I’m sure old Mitch McConnell will fight tooth and nail to prevent it because truth and facts are trumps worst enemies and the gop are wed to trumps fate 5 1 1 3 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Lungstib Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 Its not really a trial. From legal-dictionary; "The chief purpose of a trial is to secure fair and impartial administration of justice between the parties to the action". There is nothing 'impartial' about a senate full of politicians who are expected to toe the party line. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Boon Mee Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 And the Witch Hunt continues unabated. Pretty sad... 11 1 1 2 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Emdog Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 If you're charged with a crime, especially a non violent crime, you want as many witnesses & evidence as possible. If you did commit a crime, you want no witnesses or evidence. The most pathetic aspect of this situation is the total abandonment of truth, defense of Constitutional and American values of justice 4 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 Keep in mind this is Trump’s first impeachment. Congress are still actively seeking access to evidence and witnesses that may well lead to a second impeachment. 3 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Laza 45 Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 Passing one or two more articles of impeachment might be a good move.. Stick to your guns Nancy! 4 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sir Swagman Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Boon Mee said: And the Witch Hunt continues unabated. Pretty sad... What you doggedly ignore, in a most spectacular fashion with your pursuit of non-fact based beliefs, is that this ‘witch hunt’ would have ended in weeks, if not days, had trump produced the documents, witnesses and testimony to prove his undoubted innocence. It would have shut it down completely. One can only assume trump is thoroughly enjoying dragging it out so his shining innocence is on view for all to see. Edited January 10, 2020 by Sir Swagman Typo 5 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sujo Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 For someone who made a perfect call he sure is doing his best to hide it. President mitch is going to commit perjury as soon as he swears his oath. 5 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Baerboxer Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 5 hours ago, Tug said: Well of course there should be witnesses but I’m sure old Mitch McConnell will fight tooth and nail to prevent it because truth and facts are trumps worst enemies and the gop are wed to trumps fate And will these justice seeking Democrats pressure the Bidens to give evidence as witnesses under oath if so required? Also, what is going on with this investigation into channeling millions of foreign origin $ illegally to senior democrats? 1 2 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Baerboxer Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 43 minutes ago, Sir Swagman said: What you doggedly ignore, in a most spectacular fashion with your pursuit of non-fact based beliefs, is that this ‘witch hunt’ would have ended in weeks, if not days, had trump produced the documents, witnesses and testimony to prove his undoubted innocence. It would have shut it down completely. One can only assume trump is thoroughly enjoying dragging it out so his shining innocence is on view for all to see. No it wouldn't. The Democrats are like a dog with a bone. First the Russian involvement, then this. And if this fails they'll keep spending all their time and effort looking for anything they can twist and balloon into something. And all the time ignoring the rabid corruption on their own side of the fence. Because after all, they are the politically correct people chosen to rule. 7 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Baerboxer Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said: Keep in mind this is Trump’s first impeachment. Congress are still actively seeking access to evidence and witnesses that may well lead to a second impeachment. And a third, fourth, and fifth. Like dogs with a bone. They must be riddled with hate because their candidate, the one they chose and cheated to get nominated, failed. How dare the people not do as their told! They are insisting on taking all the tops off all the bottles. And some genies are gonna come back and bite them! 4 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post RideJocky Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 6 hours ago, Tug said: Well of course there should be witnesses but I’m sure old Mitch McConnell will fight tooth and nail to prevent it because truth and facts are trumps worst enemies and the gop are wed to trumps fate McConnell doesn’t have to fight. The House forfeited their right to demand anything. Why did the House not take Trump to court and compel the witnesses to testify? I heard McConnell may start the trial without waiting for Nancy. How funny would that be? 6 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Cryingdick Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said: Keep in mind this is Trump’s first impeachment. Congress are still actively seeking access to evidence and witnesses that may well lead to a second impeachment. On his way to his second term. 2 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Cryingdick Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sujo said: For someone who made a perfect call he sure is doing his best to hide it. President mitch is going to commit perjury as soon as he swears his oath. Will he show up with a cigar on Epsteins private jet to Prague? Edited January 10, 2020 by Cryingdick 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post elmrfudd Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 It is sadly hilarious to watch the blatantly Virtue signaling leftists in pushing this ridiculous fantasy. We can only hope that she is the only speaker to lose her position twice. And she gets better denture adhesive so she can stop that slippage. 5 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkingOrders Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Yawn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thaibeachlovers Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 7 hours ago, webfact said: "I'll send them over when I'm ready, and that will probably be soon," she told a news conference. Didn't they rush the investigation because it was so important to impeach him? Seems it wasn't so necessary to rush after all- they could even have called those witnesses they are so keen to hear from themselves. Perhaps Nancy et al don't realise how daft they look now, with all the messing around. Nothing to fear. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thaibeachlovers Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 7 hours ago, webfact said: McConnell said the Senate would resume its regular legislative business next week if the impeachment articles are not in hand. "This conversation is over," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "We are not ceding our constitutional authority to the partisan designs of the speaker." You go McConnell, you stand firm and this circus will soon be over. 4 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ricohoc Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 The question will continue to be asked. Witnesses to what exactly? Feelings? Presumptions? A different foreign policy agenda that upsets some bureaucrat? There won't be any hearsay witnesses (like in the House), and I'm betting there will be no witnesses at all -- except maybe the only real witness: Sondland; and he's a better witness FOR Trump. Sondland already testified that Trump told him directly that he wanted nothing in return for aid to Ukraine. The only thing for Democrats to hope at this point is that their drumbeat damages Trump in the election; but they're losing in that strategy, too. Trump has probably gained more support over three years than he had when elected, and that support is going to come from many different demographics. 6 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlinclaifornia Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, RideJocky said: McConnell doesn’t have to fight. The House forfeited their right to demand anything. Why did the House not take Trump to court and compel the witnesses to testify? I heard McConnell may start the trial without waiting for Nancy. How funny would that be? Did you also HEAR he needs 67 votes? LOL. FAT CHANCE! Edited January 10, 2020 by earlinclaifornia spelling 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thaibeachlovers Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said: Did you also HEAR he needs 67 votes? LOL. FAT CHANCE! No idea what you are talking about. He doesn't need 67 votes. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laza 45 Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Baerboxer said: No it wouldn't. The Democrats are like a dog with a bone. First the Russian involvement, then this. And if this fails they'll keep spending all their time and effort looking for anything they can twist and balloon into something. And all the time ignoring the rabid corruption on their own side of the fence. Because after all, they are the politically correct people chosen to rule. Yea!.. remember Hillary's emails.. such a scandal! 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Cryingdick said: On his way to his second term. The 25 Republican Congressmen and 4 Republican Senators who have announced their retirement at the next election seem keen to surrender what you repeatedly refer to as an election certainty. Perhaps they know something you would rather not know. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/retirement-congress-2020-hurd-alexander/596965/ Edited January 10, 2020 by Chomper Higgot 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post elmrfudd Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 Just now, Chomper Higgot said: The 25 Republicans who have announced their retirement at the next election seem keen to surrender what you repeatedly refer to as an election certainty. Perhaps they know something you would rather not know. There were even more in 2018, what does that have to do with a second presidential term? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sujo Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Ricohoc said: The question will continue to be asked. Witnesses to what exactly? Feelings? Presumptions? A different foreign policy agenda that upsets some bureaucrat? There won't be any hearsay witnesses (like in the House), and I'm betting there will be no witnesses at all -- except maybe the only real witness: Sondland; and he's a better witness FOR Trump. Sondland already testified that Trump told him directly that he wanted nothing in return for aid to Ukraine. The only thing for Democrats to hope at this point is that their drumbeat damages Trump in the election; but they're losing in that strategy, too. Trump has probably gained more support over three years than he had when elected, and that support is going to come from many different demographics. Witnesses to trump asking a foreign govt investigate a political rival. Bolton and pompeo were witness to it. Mulvaney admitted it. So those witnesses would be a great start. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlinclaifornia Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: No idea what you are talking about. He doesn't need 67 votes. Staying un-imformed is a cult behavior. Senate rules suggest such a move would be difficult, if not impossible. It would take 60 votes to pass a resolution on impeachment outside a trial and 67 votes to change the impeachment rules. That threshold would require Democratic support, since McConnell has only 53 Republicans — and Democrats would be loath to undercut Pelosi. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-republican-suggests-changing-senate-rules-to-begin-trump-impeachment-trial-within-days/2020/01/05/4e5bebe6-2fdb-11ea-898f-eb846b7e9feb_story.html Edited January 10, 2020 by earlinclaifornia 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ricohoc Posted January 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2020 Except it was the role of the House to call witnesses and take any claims of executive privilege to the courts. Too busy for that. Must vote to impeach this threat to national security. So now they have an incomplete case to present to the Senate (if they ever present it) with only one suitable witness claiming first-hand knowledge. Nancy's stunt of stalling it has managed to confirm what it was all along -- superficial and political theater. Unfinished business that the Senate is not likely to complete for them. The House is now faced with having to present their case as is; and here lately, even Dem Senators are perturbed at Nancy's antics. This sham impeachment effort is going nowhere. The fact that Nancy hasn't forwarded it to the Senate is just further evidence of that. Democrats, filling their usual role of being the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences, have botched yet another of what they thought would be a slam dunk (like Hillary's primary election and the Mueller Report). Nope. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlinclaifornia Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 1 hour ago, elmrfudd said: There were even more in 2018, what does that have to do with a second presidential term? 28, 25 who is counting JUST LEAVE please! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlinclaifornia Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, Ricohoc said: Except it was the role of the House to call witnesses and take any claims of executive privilege to the courts. Too busy for that. Must vote to impeach this threat to national security. So now they have an incomplete case to present to the Senate (if they ever present it) with only one suitable witness claiming first-hand knowledge. Nancy's stunt of stalling it has managed to confirm what it was all along -- superficial and political theater. Unfinished business that the Senate is not likely to complete for them. The House is now faced with having to present their case as is; and here lately, even Dem Senators are perturbed at Nancy's antics. This sham impeachment effort is going nowhere. The fact that Nancy hasn't forwarded it to the Senate is just further evidence of that. Democrats, filling their usual role of being the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences, have botched yet another of what they thought would be a slam dunk (like Hillary's primary election and the Mueller Report). Nope. trump's stonewalling of the direct knowledge testimony of those person could continue to linger in courts for to long, hence the 2 articles not waiting forever. Want those directly involved names as a reminder? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts