Impeachment Trial

[Gelston]

Wait, I think I get you.

So, that evidence already existed and hadn't been doctored or manipulated in any fashion and it wasn't called into question for the hearing in a timely manner like it should have (could have) been? Er?

The investigatory phase is basically what the House did, and they voted on impeachment, or indictment. Which means their investigatory phase is done. They are supposed to already have all the evidence they needed when they sent it to the Senate. If they didn't feel they had enough yet, they shouldn't have voted yet. It isn't on the Senate to investigate, it is on them to try.

[Archigeek]

The investigatory phase is basically what the House did, and they voted on impeachment, or indictment. Which means their investigatory phase is done. They are supposed to already have all the evidence they needed when they sent it to the Senate. If they didn't feel they had enough yet, they shouldn't have voted yet. It isn't on the Senate to investigate, it is on them to try.

There is nothing in the constitution that says the Senate can't add or look at additional evidence. In fact, if you look at the precedence, they probably look at additional evidence, including witnesses in most impeachment trials. The reason they didn't look at witnesses was political. Keep in mind though that it is supposed to be a political process. If the framers of the constitution wanted a less political trial they would have put it in the hands of the supreme court.

Personally I thought the house presented their case too hastily. It was always a foregone conclusion that short of an absolute bombshell, he was not going to be removed from office.

[Methais]

There is nothing in the constitution that says the Senate can't add or look at additional evidence. In fact, if you look at the precedence, they probably look at additional evidence, including witnesses in most impeachment trials. The reason they didn't look at witnesses was political. Keep in mind though that it is supposed to be a political process. If the framers of the constitution wanted a less political trial they would have put it in the hands of the supreme court.

Personally I thought the house presented their case too hastily. It was always a foregone conclusion that short of an absolute bombshell, he was not going to be removed from office.

Yeah but...the House said they had all the evidence they needed and have overwhelmingly proven their case. Why would they need more witnesses if that were the case?

They shot themselves in the foot with that retarded bullshit and now they're salty about it because it backfired.

[Archigeek]

Yeah but...the House said they had all the evidence they needed and have overwhelmingly proven their case. Why would they need more witnesses if that were the case?

They shot themselves in the foot with that retarded bullshit and now they're salty about it because it backfired.

They did kind of box themselves into a corner with that, but it was also obvious that we didn't see witnesses because the Senate Republicans didn't want to see them, not because there wasn't new and important information that should have been heard. Republicans new that if the door to witnesses was opened, this thing would have drawn out another couple of weeks at least, and what evidence would show up would be out of their control.

[Gelston]

There is nothing in the constitution that says the Senate can't add or look at additional evidence. In fact, if you look at the precedence, they probably look at additional evidence, including witnesses in most impeachment trials. The reason they didn't look at witnesses was political. Keep in mind though that it is supposed to be a political process. If the framers of the constitution wanted a less political trial they would have put it in the hands of the supreme court.

Personally I thought the house presented their case too hastily. It was always a foregone conclusion that short of an absolute bombshell, he was not going to be removed from office.

No, there isn't, but it is considered a court at this time. It is pretty much common sense that the House needs to have all of their ducks in a row before they send it to the Senate. Again, the Senate isn't there to investigate, the House does that. The Senate is there to decide if what the House uncovered is legitimate and if there was a contactable offense.

[Archigeek]

No, there isn't, but it is considered a court at this time. It is pretty much common sense that the House needs to have all of their ducks in a row before they send it to the Senate. Again, the Senate isn't there to investigate, the House does that. The Senate is there to decide if what the House uncovered is legitimate and if there was a contactable offense.

Like I said, most of the time they look at witnesses/more evidence, granted most of the time it's not a presidential impeachment, it's some judge. There really is no "common sense" on this, it doesn't happen enough. Personally I thought John Robert's should have required witnesses, which he could have done as the presiding judge, but he made the decision to stay out of a political process, and you can't really blame him too much for that.

I'll reiterate that I thought the house should have just drawn this out, slowly and painfully. So now we get the slow revelation of the evidence after the trial is over.

[Methais]

Wait, I think I get you.

So, that evidence already existed and hadn't been doctored or manipulated in any fashion and it wasn't called into question for the hearing in a timely manner like it should have (could have) been? Er?

House democrats said a million times during the inquiry that they had all the evidence they need and have overwhelmingly proven their case.

If that's the case, then why would they need new witnesses?

[Neveragain]

Trump’s Treasury Department is now helping a Hunter Biden probe

The U.S. Treasury Department has started turning over confidential banking records related to Hunter Biden in response to requests from Senate investigative committees.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...e-hands-report

[Jank]

Just found out about this slam video of Romney tweeted by Trump

I have posted links to two videos. Which one do you like more?

[Tgo01]

This video perfectly sums up the current state of the evil Democrats:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...929988097?s=20