Last night 12 requests for additional information was
Asked for....it was rejected.
Im reminded of the saying
"The truth will set you free"
Why such an effort to block
And surpress evidence.
The objective is the truth...
But, blocking sopenia...
It is not, about this play or
That play....it is the truth.
Politics has got in the road of
What is best for the country and
Re: The truth
If the house doesn't have evidence then their vote for articles was a sham. They have 3 eight hour days to present their over whelming evidence of high crimes committed by the president. If they fail to prove high crimes the senate has no choice but to vote for acquittal.
Re: The truth
Unfortunately, or at least realistically, that's nothing new nor shocking.
Did some reading this morning, various sources, didn't really seem to alter opinion of anything for either side.
In their haste of capitalizing on public opinion polls, among other factors, the House did not take the steps necessary to call the witnesses they apparently desire, during the House impeachment process. If the Senate hears the case as presented by the House, and then desires to hear from additional witnesses, they can still vote on whether or not to do so at that time. At least, that's what I've surmised after sorting thru all the "spin" in the "news" articles.
At the same time, we again heard yesterday that the House has already proven their case, that the evidence is overwhelming, etc. -- based on that, let's hear it, it's all been submitted as evidence, and the Senate put it in the record yesterday.
Yesterday, 50% (or more) of the "debate" was a waste of taxpayer time and money. The purpose was to approve the rules, yet 50% (or more) of the time was spent on repeating pros and cons of the House impeachment information and the case that is yet to be presented.
Couple of the "news" articles commented on the hours of debate, the challenges some Senators had in staying interested and awake -- the Senators should all be commended for putting up with so much nonsense from everyone (both sides) who made presentations yesterday.
The attention is on the Senate, the actions are within the Senate -- this is not the House, not the House rules, Schiff and Pelosi and Nadler are no longer in charge of the proceedings, Schumer is minority party in the Senate -- the tables have turned on the influence of those who brought the impeachment articles forward -- it's a new arena. The information and evidence they gathered to establish and garner approval of the impeachment articles can now be presented.
And while we're desiring the "truth", the "whole truth", and "nothing but the truth" -- how often do we really get that from anything political? [or, the "news"?]
Re: The truth
Been reading quite a bit of both sides....mostly RW stuff for that matter...this AM.
Beating on the point you bring up that the House should have interviewed certain people, with little or no mention of the fact that the people they most wanted to interview were blocked by the WH.
Depending on the base to not either know or understand or care about it and take the talking point ar face value.
Re: The truth
I think the point the R's were trying to make a few times -- the D's could have taken legal steps to obtain judicial actions to determine if they could "interview" certain people, and they chose not to do so -- in the Nixon case, the House took those steps.
Re: The truth
What i would like to see is all
The evidence to come out, we
Could all read it, and we make
Up our own minds (not rush or
others)...i really dont know if the
House dropped to ball or not,
But, if there is evidence, that
Hasnt been hurd....it should
Come out....remember...not is
He on trail now....but next
Election too....and WE HAVE A
RIGHT to know what kind of a
Person this is....no matter what
The senate republicans and
Trumps dream team lawyers
Say (oh...who is paying for that)
Nor what he wants to hide with
Re: The truth
On a very basic level, agree with you ElCheapo.
On the other hand, every tidbit is subject to interpretation, presumption and spin.
For example --
- Withholding $$$ to Ukraine, which were subject to US acceptance that Ukraine was taking care of corruption problems, and which were paid to Ukraine before the $$$ were subject to impoundment -- in the President's call manuscripts, etc., there was never a mention of any action being for the purpose of digging up dirt on Biden, nor of influencing the 2020 election, yet we hear this continuously from D's -- it is an extension of the facts, a presumption, spin -- it goes beyond the facts, and presumes the intent of those who actually participated in the call.
Never mind the fact that the call manuscript was de-classified and made available to the public, the call manuscript was actually written by someone on the National Security Council, and the call manuscript was circulated among those actually on the call for input and revision prior to being finalized.
And never mind the fact that multiple D's were calling for the impeachment of Trump before he was even sworn into office, basically an impeachment process just looking for a potentially credible reason, going so far as to initiate impeachment processes for reasons which were apparently proven as false (or at least they didn't hold up to scrutiny), then simply moving on to another potentially credible reason until they had enough votes to impeach. All of this represents a preconceived notion to impeach the President, and clearly has influenced the thinking and actions of those calling for his impeachment.
My TV is on, not paying a lot of attention, yet I hear many Schiff opinions and innuendos, and far fewer facts.
If it really is 51%
or thereabouts, that’s unquestionably a fairly significant number of people who have either made up or changed their minds quite recently,.
No small decision to make and might take some hefty persuasion to reverse.
Probably don’t want it to get much higher, actually, as God only knows how what gets sanctioned by this Bannon/Miller/Duke inspired base might be if it’s suddenly feeling cornered.
Re: The truth
Bit of a summary from what I hear and read 'up here' and other international sources.
Congress was limited in what and who they could get to make the decision to impeach. Limited by your dear leader and if they had taken to the courts to get interviews and documents it would have taken a year or more to get them.
The question also arises if those documents and witnesses could prove your dear leader innocent then WHY is he with holding them? Seems like a good bet he knows they will incriminate him.
Witnesses that did testify indicate that all he wanted from Ukraine was an announcement that they were going to investigate Biden.
A few of the things I have heard from here and now the Senate is going out of its way to not have a trail with any evidence or investigation of any consequence. That sure appears to the world like a fix is in to get a guilty person off. He may get an acquittal but the world and history will see a guilty man that got off through manipulation of the system not because he was innocent.
Re: The truth
Canuck, interesting to hear from up there and international sources, perhaps not same as I read. I still think much of the news is biased against Trump, regardless of the topic. I don't typically watch nor read FOX nor CNN, as they seem to be outliers on one side or the other in the major news networks, yet trust FOX more than CNN.
The House wasn't really limited in any way. Yes, it might have taken some time to get actions via the court system, yet it likely would have been streamlined, perhaps directly to Supreme Court. They didn't try. They also did not want to risk getting denied and having the Court more clearly identify what is off-limits to their House eyes and ears. The potential documents and witnesses the House desired might, or might not, have provided anything particularly incriminating, yet again, they didn't pursue the issues. The witnesses testified about wanting a Ukraine announcement, yet that wasn't in the call transcript, that was how the witnesses interpreted what they heard, perhaps what they said amongst themselves, and what one or more of them relayed to Ukrainians -- it is not necessarily what the witnesses were actually told, other than to each other. Of course, then we had Giuliani in there -- not sure where and how he played into things, I think he's a genuinely well-educated idiot, probably not a reliable witness for either side. The House (and media) generally played up all the witness testimonies that suited their agenda, yet the cross-examinations raised serious and legitimate questions about essentially all of them.
As for the Senate -- ALL of the House investigations, hearings and actions reportedly have been submitted and accepted into evidence by the Senate -- that is supposed to be the trail, the evidence, and the investigation.
The media can say it however they want, yet the Senate will not necessarily decide 'guilt' nor 'innocence', though they might -- the Senate will decide whether or not Trump is to be removed from office, regardless -- the Senate can also decide if Trump will remain eligible or become ineligible for future office.
In the Clinton impeachment -- primarily about perjury(ies), an actual crime [though the perjury(ies) primarily regarding his affair(s)] -- impeached by the House, not removed from office by the Senate.
In the Nixon impeachment -- primarily about Watergate break-in at Democrat headquarters, bugging the office, and cover-up -- resigned before coming to a vote to impeach in the House.