There SHOULD be a crime, and a very serious one at that, otherwise you just have a situation where a majority party in congress removed a duly elected president from office for no godamn reason.
[deleted]
0 ups, 5y
18 witnesses...all democrat called. Democrats refused to let Republicans call witnesses that would exonerate the pres. That's fine. The house makes their rules and that's fair. The Senate let the democrat case stand on its own merits, because they said it was overwhelming and unassailable. The Senate has it's rules as well, and that's fair. As it is Trump had 18 testify against him and still didn't have enough to make impeachment and removal from office an absolute necessity. You can't rig the house and complain that you aren't allowed to control the Senate and call it fair.
"Innocent me aren't afraid of witnesses".
Bullshit. Get in a courtroom where your DA has an agenda to get you put away and has the right to call in hearsay as evidence. You'll cry for due process then. Innocent people should definitely fear and fight a corrupt procedure that has pronounced you guilty before the trial.
I see it as just getting the shit show over with as fast as possible, so they won't have to entertain it any longer. There was no due process in the house, and all of the testimony against Trump was false, opinion, and/or hearsay.
I mean pretty much every trail allows new evidence and witnesses why was this one different
[deleted]
3 ups, 5y
[deleted]
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
An impeachment is different from any other trial. The Senate are Jurors in this trial, not investigators. All the investigation happens prior to the Senate receiving the impeachment papers. Otherwise, what's the point of Congress in this. The Constitution didn't want the Senate locked up in endless investigations to corroborate the ones that should've already taken place in the House. There is a country that needs to be run and it can't be done if you lock them up in deliberations time after time. The right to a speedy trial is also a right as well.
Trump shut down the government for how long when he was holding out for funding for his fence?
The Senate should have called witnesses. How about ones who could clear his name? What about Bolton or Parnas who were saying that they were eye witnesses to Trump's guilt? That Trump was guilty of everything he was being accused of? What about Parnas' recording of Trump agreeing to fire a US ambassador at the behest of someone who he was financially beholden to?
So Dershowitz says "yea he did it, but he had good intentions." Seriously? Congress aren't passive jurors. They question people in their hearings. It's a big part of their job.
One of the most important trials to hit this country in over a decade and they want to open and shut the case in such a clearly corrupt and cowardly way? No sorry. There's no justification or rationalization. They're not calling witnesses because Trump is guilty and *should* be punished.
[deleted]
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
You guys should know by now that all of our politicians are as resilient as roaches.
