The Democrats set this trial up so they could take advantage of the rules of a Senate Impeachment Trial.
Many of the claims that Democrats have been making have no basis in fact. Here are a few of them:
Big Lie #1- No witnesses....no documents
Big Lie #2 - An acquittal isn't an exoneration
Big Lie #3 - Even if they proved their case they still would have lost due to their faulty claims
But I think this has been the plan all along. If they couldn't trick Trump into breaking the law....they would use impeachment as a weapon in the election (an obvious abuse of congressional power) and they would in one move both attempt to de-legitimize Trumps presidency while hopefully inoculating themselves from prosecution when the DoJ starts indicting and bringing charges against the guilty parties in the Russian Collusion scandal. Impeachment is just another phase of the cover up of the money laundering that Democrats and Republicans are involved in in Ukraine and China.
Many of the claims that Democrats have been making have no basis in fact. Here are a few of them:
Big Lie #1- No witnesses....no documents
"This is a ridiculous spin driven by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y."
The House heard from 18 witnesses (17 of them public). On its own decision, the Democratic majority in the House decided not to allow GOP witnesses or subpoena witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton and Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who they now claim they “must” hear from.
The Democrats didn’t want to be tied up in the judicial system to allow a court to determine if their subpoenas were valid and could override executive privilege. They have been planning this for years....and they couldn't allow anything to hold up their schedule....even the law.
"It’s theoretically possible Democrats could have prevailed in requiring testimony if they had gone through the proper judicial process, but they were too busy pretending it was a matter of national security to push their impeachment through quickly. That was their choice not to litigate those issues."
It was not the responsibility of the White House to agree to the House’s witness list just because Adam Schiff demanded it and threw a temper tantrum.
The House heard from 18 witnesses (17 of them public). On its own decision, the Democratic majority in the House decided not to allow GOP witnesses or subpoena witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton and Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who they now claim they “must” hear from.
The Democrats didn’t want to be tied up in the judicial system to allow a court to determine if their subpoenas were valid and could override executive privilege. They have been planning this for years....and they couldn't allow anything to hold up their schedule....even the law.
"It’s theoretically possible Democrats could have prevailed in requiring testimony if they had gone through the proper judicial process, but they were too busy pretending it was a matter of national security to push their impeachment through quickly. That was their choice not to litigate those issues."
It was not the responsibility of the White House to agree to the House’s witness list just because Adam Schiff demanded it and threw a temper tantrum.
Yes it is. A verdict of acquittal by the authorized arbiter (whether a judge or jury or – in this case – the Senate) means the person charged is not guilty and fully exonerated. The point of process is to render a final judgment on the merits, unless a case is dismissed earlier for a procedural or process issue.
In a regular judicial context, there is an appellate process, which the Constitution does not provide for in cases of impeachment. The Senate’s rulings on questions of law are just as final as its verdict. The Democrats obviously won’t like the outcome of a vote for acquittal of President Trump, but an acquittal is indeed a full exoneration. That’s basic law and is also just. Jenna Ellis: Trump impeachment trial was fair – Democratic complaints based on Big Lies
In a regular judicial context, there is an appellate process, which the Constitution does not provide for in cases of impeachment. The Senate’s rulings on questions of law are just as final as its verdict. The Democrats obviously won’t like the outcome of a vote for acquittal of President Trump, but an acquittal is indeed a full exoneration. That’s basic law and is also just. Jenna Ellis: Trump impeachment trial was fair – Democratic complaints based on Big Lies
The charges don't fit the crime. First, it is not an abuse of power to withhold funds in foreign aid because the president has the authority to withhold foreign aid for any reason.
Secondly, it is not obstruction of congress for the president to take advantage his lawful rights to have his side heard in court. This is the primary weakness of the House Democrats....and it was glaring. They were in such a rush to impeach the president and not allow him his rights in court that they destroyed their own case. The Senate had every right to simply dismiss the case without hearing any evidence because of this fact. Instead they chose to allow the Democrats to go thru this charade and make total fools of themselves, which the Trump lawyers clearly pointed out. In an actual court of law the judge would have been forced to declare a mistrial.
Secondly, it is not obstruction of congress for the president to take advantage his lawful rights to have his side heard in court. This is the primary weakness of the House Democrats....and it was glaring. They were in such a rush to impeach the president and not allow him his rights in court that they destroyed their own case. The Senate had every right to simply dismiss the case without hearing any evidence because of this fact. Instead they chose to allow the Democrats to go thru this charade and make total fools of themselves, which the Trump lawyers clearly pointed out. In an actual court of law the judge would have been forced to declare a mistrial.
