What do you think of the "No Witnesses" vote?

I can answer that question fairly easily. It was the RIGHT decision by the Senate. There were 17 “witnesses” whose testimony and 28,000 pages of documents that accompanied the Articles of Impeachment sent to the Senate. If the House thought they needed testimony or other documents from others, they COULD have gotten them before sending their sham documents to the Senate, but didn’t want to “inconvenience” their candidates by delaying it through the primaries. The Constitution give the House the authority to file charges of impeachment against the President. They kept bragging about how “iron-clad” their case was. When the President’s attorneys pointed out that the case was ANYTHING but “iron-clad” they began to panic and started that “additional witnesses and documents” BS. It’s not the Senate’s job to clean up the House’s mistakes and crappy case for them. There have been thousands, if not MILLIONS, of cases that have proceeded to a verdict without witnesses being questioned or documents produced beyond what was made available to the grand jury that indicted. In many such cases, the opening statements are made and the judge merely renders a verdict or dismissal. It’s NOT all that uncommon…particularly when the case is as weak as these were. This is the first attempted impeachment with no crime even alleged and no victims whatsoever.
In reality, what screwed up this attempted coup for the Democrats was that President Trump did something they never anticipated. He declassified and released the transcript of that telephone call proving there was no quid pro quo even discussed. By that time, they were already committed to the impeachment and couldn’t back down without looking foolish. They spent over $3 million trying to oust President Trump and STILL wound up looking foolish anyway.

2 Likes

The dems had all kinds of witnesses. Seventeen to be exact and number 18 was the anonymous leaker whose name i won’t mention, Mr Ciaramella. According to Mrs. Conway having to listen to Schiff for hours a day was tatamount to a crime against humanity. LOL But then…to have Schiff for brains and The Round Mound of the Gavel at each other over who took precedence?..delicioso.

and…i guess i could say that it was good to see that ‘the turtle’ is good for something…once in awhile.

1 Like

I was torn, on one hand I did not want any credibility given to this sham by pretending that there was ANY evidence worthy of calling witnesses or giving any appreciable time to this partisan witch hunt.

On the other hand I really wanted to have these lying democrats called under oath to answer for their collusion with the fake whistle blower and Biden exposed as either a liar or guilty of a federal crime for the quid pro quo that he confessed to publicly.

It was smarter to kill it quick but it would have been a lot more fun to watch the “House Managers” take the 5th to avoid confessing their crimes on public television :joy:

2 Likes

I share your sentiments. I am hoping for unanimity of the GOP on the verdict together with at least one democrat but you can bet the farm on this:

THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PHONEY-BALONEY BOMBSHELL BEFORE THE FINAL VOTE WEDNESDAY.

It ain’t over 'till it’s over.

2 Likes

Actually, Caroline, the 18th witness was the CIA’s IG. It was HIS testimony that Schiff chose to remain hidden from everyone. One can only wonder why. Could it be that he wanted to protect his daughter’s boyfriend from exposure? Ciaramella is supposedly dating her as this is written.

1 Like

You know, I"m reminded of a lawsuit I was involved in in which I was accused of rear-ending somebody. I had evidence (dash cam) that proved otherwise, and I entered that evidence in. The accusers argued that I shouldn’t be allowed to provide the evidence because it would slow down the trial and it wasn’t from the police anyway. The court ruled my dashcam video was fine and was entered into as evidence. That evidence is what proved the car in front of me rolled back into me.

At the end of the day, the entire impeachment process has been a partisian issue. The democrats on the impeachment, AND the Republican’s on axoneration. This wasn’t a trial. What trial has the accused friends with the jurors and thus can control what is entered as evidence or not? Would the evidence have even mattered? Republicans announced their intent to acquit even before the trial, and Republican’s consider their control over the trial like this as UNFAIR to them? Seriously?

Sorry, but this entire thing was a case of both the Democrats and Republicans taking the justice is blind girl, throwing her to the ground, then savagely beating her. Both parties have been disgusting in their actions and have had no concept of the damage to the constitution this entire thing has done.

1 Like

Actually, every one of the Senators on the “jury” SAW the “evidence” that the House managers relied on to file these charges against the President. The whole COUNTRY saw it, in fact…at least those who were interested in what the House was up to this time. Fact was, their “evidence” was 16 people “testifying” based on what they’d HEARD about what happened and one man who said that the President had told him he did NOT want any quid pro quo. The Ukrainians ALL said that there was no “pressure” from the President to force them to investigate the Bidens and, at the time of the phone call, none of them even KNEW there’d been a delay in sending them our money. Article 1 failed on its face. There was NO “abuse of power” involved in the President’s relationship with the incoming Ukrainian administration. CERTAINLY not involving those two phone calls and their aftermath. Article 2 failed because there was no “contempt of Congress” (though there probably SHOULD be). It is NOT an “offense” to assert Executive Privilege. If it was, EVERY President since Washington could have been impeached since they ALL do it at one time or another.

1 Like