Watching the Senate Trial. The House managers are arguing testimony and documents are still required. Is this a tacit admission that they lack the evidence to prove their case? — NOS4A2

In a criminal trial, a prosecutor would be derelict if he failed to obtain every significant bit of evidence possible. On the other hand, the only credible reason I've seen to reject the seeking of more evidence is the one Lamar Alexander provided: Trump is obviously guilty, so it's not needed.

Last ditch deep-state effort to influence the Senate trial. — NOS4A2

Last ditch effort to have a fair trial with witnesses.

On the other hand, the only credible reason I've seen to reject the seeking of more evidence is the one Lamar Alexander provided: Trump is obviously guilty, so it's not needed. — Relativist

He and Dershowitz should team up. The Blunder Twins.

Is this a tacit admission that they lack the evidence to prove their case? — NOS4A2

I think it is the same 'tactical admission' of precluding witnesses!
LOL

The idea that the government can be relied upon to cure all or even most societal ills is liberalism at its worst. — Hanover

Conversely, the idea that those with power will not abuse it is conservatism at its worst.

I'm thankful for a Constitution that keeps this angry group of Democrats from undoing the will of the people. — Hanover

Perhaps you should be thankful for the Republican senators who betray their oaths of impartial justice and choose loyalty to their party over loyalty to the American people.

He and Dershowitz should team up. The Blunder Twins.

Ha, yeah wasn't Dershowitz the guy who represented Jeffery Epstein, OJ Simpson, and other nefarious individuals? LOL

FYI- if you do the research, you'll see Dershowitz typically represents people who commit sex crimes. It almost begs the question why? He's done it for years with little success. Maybe he's got some sort of axe to grind...

...and does 'the will of the people', include Republicans who condone cheating? Yikes!
Christianity Today final saw the light!

LOL

Lincoln used the Constitutional War Power of the President to free the slaves. — frank

He didn't free the slaves, else the 13th Amendment would have been superfluous. He proclaimed those slaves in the regions still in rebellion and outside his jurisdiction free, which was entirely a political act and of no legal consequence. Every slave within Union territory remained a slave and he had no ability to enforce his proclamation upon the Southern states. The Proclamation's primary purpose was not to free anyone, but to re-cast the war as one to end slavery (as opposed to simply keep the Union intact) so as to eliminate European alliances with the South, as European powers at this point were extremely opposed to slavery.

What Lincoln did, though, was to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to allow the imprisonment of dissenters and strip them of their legal rights, a clear cause for impeachment, as the right to suspend habeas corpus was only a Congressional power to exercise.

.

Ha, yeah wasn't Dershowitz the guy who represented Jeffery Epstein, OJ Simpson, and other nefarious individuals? LOL

FYI- if you do the research, you'll see Dershowitz typically represents people who commit sex crimes. It almost begs the question why? He's done it for years with little success. Maybe he's got some sort of axe to grind... — 3017amen

Are we now arguing that certain criminals are not entitled to representation and those who choose to represent them are of low moral character? And even should your argument be correct, which it is not, how would that ad hom affect the accuracy of Dershowitz' Constitutional analysis that the allegations against Trump, even if true, do not constitute offenses worthy of warranting removal from office?

Ha, yeah wasn't Dershowitz is the guy who represented Jeffery Epstein, OJ Simpson, and other nefarious individuals? LOL — 3017amen

He's the one who argued that it's OK for Trump to leverage military aid to help his reelection.

If you were a lawyer, would you have represented OJ and Epstein?

f you don't think he's hiding anything, then why resist witnesses, subpoenas, intimidating Gov employees, witnesses and senators, hiring attorney's (Giuliani) and nefarious associates (just like he did in the Mueller case where at least 6 people from his campaign plead guilty/in jail) instead of letting gov. agencies investigate Barisma, on and on.

Any clues there? Using logic, is it reasonable to assume he's guilty? I'm a bit confused. Please share your detailed thoughts if you could.

As far as the phone call, he asked for a favor, no?

Oh, yeah, Thanks. I think he was the guy who flip-flopped on his interpretation of 'abuse of power' during the Clinton era(?)

Watching the Senate Trial. The House managers are arguing testimony and documents are still required. Is this a tacit admission that they lack the evidence to prove their case? — NOS4A2

Trump defense lawyers arguing that a senate trial is no place for witnesses and documents is a perspicuous admission that they believe Trump is guilty.

Yep, it's obvious common sense stuff. The Republicans are like Ostrich's; they've buried their heads in the sand only to complain it's too dark!

LOL

He didn't free the slaves, else the 13th Amendment would have been superfluous. — Hanover

All the seats for southern congressmen and senators were vacant when the 13th Amendment was passed. The Reconstruction Act required the South to ratify the 14th Amendment.

Are you sure this is where you want to celebrate democracy? 'Cause there are much better examples. Try the Voter Rights Act.

https://twitter.com/josephabondy/status/1223331368618418176/photo/1

The new Sekulow argument: "It's not fair that we never got to cross examine house witnesses, so we would spend months doing that if witnesses are called; also: please no witnesses".

He wasn't charged with obstructing the Mueller investigation. — Hanover

I know.

If the US doesn't lead in anything, then why all the academic interest in the goings on in Washington? — Hanover

One does well to take note of the elephant rampaging in the porcelain shop.

Bonus question : how come the president changed his mind about witnesses didn't he want to see witnesses? Or was he lying again...

LOL

No witnesses then...

What a disgrace, a dark day in the history of America. Liars defending a liar with lies, and the liars have prevailed.

Even with witnesses 67 votes was never going to happen.

Even with witnesses 67 votes was never going to happen. — Michael

Yes, but the testimony of first-hand witnesses may have won a portion of the hearts and minds.

This isn't exclusively about the present engagement. This is about precedent.

Rubio: Impeachable actions don't necessarily mean a president should be removed

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480912-rubio-impeachable-actions-dont-necessarily-mean-a-president-should-be-removed

new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true,” Rubio said.

The Third Musketeer has joined showing that the Democrats were right and that the Republicans are partisan hacks who will say and do anything to protect their own.

t the Republicans are partisan hacks who will say and do anything to protect their own. — Michael

Unwavering support for the POTUS from the GOP is what Trump supporters like.

Who cares about things like truth and following the rules? Politics is all lies and cheating, you know...

Though this may be painfully obvious I am willing to go out on a limb and predict the following:

1 . Over seventy percent of Americans wanted witnesses.
2. The president lied about actually wanting witnesses.
3. There is no question that more evidence will be forthcoming that will corroborate allegations.

Consequently, much like in the OJ trial, not only will you see private corporations breaking ties with the Trump brand, you will see public displays of outrage including a proliferation of crowd booing at certain public events.

Good luck Dumper Trumpers!
LOL

3. There is no question that more evidence will be forthcoming that will corroborate allegations. — 3017amen

This could be costly for some Republican senator’s in their elections.

Yep they're taking the risk of weighing the differences between POTUS' criticism, vs their constituents criticism. It appears they're choosing the lesser of two evils. However that could backfire of course.

I would not want to be in the shoes of Republicans who will have to answer to their moderate base. Further, at the end of the day you may see swing States indeed moving to the left much like the last midterms did... .

It's really a lose-lose for them.

Good luck dumper trumper's!!

The Republican Party is dead, now animated by traitors to basic American ideals. I hope they get their own brand of justice, the sooner and harsher the better.

Don't worry Tim, the real truth will show itself and become abundantly clear. They will not acquiesce to impeachment but they will certainly acquiesce to wrongdoing. You'll see this on Monday.