Democrats Getting Taste of Their Own Medicines

[protectionist]

In the Senate impeachment circus, Democrats are advancing proposals. At the time of this OP, they have put forward 5. All 5 have been shot down by the Republican majority.

Most likely, no Democrat proposals at all will be accepted, while every Republican one will. Democrats used their majority inithe House to shut Republicans up, not allowing their witnesses to testify.

Now they get the same treatment. You gotta cringe though when you see Nadler, Schumer, and other Democrats crabbing. Their phoniness is hard to watch.

 

[Lakhota]

They have been "tabled" to be voted on later. However, later makes no sense - because documents and witnesses should be voted on and approved up front.

 

[Thunk]

because documents and witnesses should be voted on and approved up front.

Why?

All doc's and witnesses SHOULD HAVE been dealt with in the house.

If the house had enough "evidence" to impeach...Let them present that same "evidence" to the senate (minus hearsay and speculation).

Then vote.

 

[Circe]

They have been "tabled" to be voted on later.

Voted on in 2037 would work for me...….

 

[toobfreak]

because documents and witnesses should be voted on and approved up front.

Why?

All doc's and witnesses SHOULD HAVE been dealt with in the house.

If the house had enough "evidence" to impeach...Let them present that same "evidence" to the senate (minus hearsay and speculation).

Then vote.

Thank you. The Democrats have already said that despite everything else, they had the evidence and case to impeach, AND THEY DID! Now that they have asked the Senate to try the case, to try THEIR case, I don't understand why they are trying to get the Senate to continue to BUILD a new case for them?

 

[westwall]

Shitforbrains said they had an ironclad case.

Well then, let's hear it

 

[protectionist]

The 5 amendments mentioned in the OP has now grown to 11 - voted down by the Republican majority.

To quote Bob Dylan, from his most famous song, "How does it feel...?,"

 

[Claudette]

The whole thing is one giant shit show based on hearsay. Not one of the witnesses the Dems talked to heard or saw anything directly.

Just a giant waste of tax dollars and a sure fire re-election for Trump.

The Dems are nothing but whiny fools who just can't believe Trump got elected in 2016. What a pack of imbeciles.

 

[B. Kidd]

They should hold the rest of the trial out of public view in the basement of the Senate.

 

[Care4all]

because documents and witnesses should be voted on and approved up front.

Why?

All doc's and witnesses SHOULD HAVE been dealt with in the house.

If the house had enough "evidence" to impeach...Let them present that same "evidence" to the senate (minus hearsay and speculation).

Then vote.

That's not true....with the new evidence that has been acquired after the impeachment. New evidence, not available or known, at the time the house voted, should be allowed and presented, as with all new evidence in any trial, material witnesses and evidence is always allowed to be submitted in any type trial.

Why?

Because a trial is where the truth is found, and the truth of what happened is critical for the jury, to make their verdict sound, fair, just.

 

[Claudette]

Gee. Wonder if they would want to impeach Biden if he were still in office??

He actually did what they are accusing Trump of. Don't hear them talking about that now do we??

I'd bet we wouldn't hear word one about Biden's Ukraine trip.

 

[ozro]

The house managers make a good case for political prisons. All of them should be locked up, with their most ardent supporters.

 

[georgephillip]

Most likely, no Democrat proposals at all will be accepted, while every Republican one will. Democrats used their majority inithe House to shut Republicans up, not allowing their witnesses to testify.

Do you expect Republicans to agree to subpoena Mulvaney and Bolton?

 

[hadit]

because documents and witnesses should be voted on and approved up front.

Why?

All doc's and witnesses SHOULD HAVE been dealt with in the house.

If the house had enough "evidence" to impeach...Let them present that same "evidence" to the senate (minus hearsay and speculation).

Then vote.

That's not true....with the new evidence that has been acquired after the impeachment. New evidence, not available or known, at the time the house voted, should be allowed and presented, as with all new evidence in any trial, material witnesses and evidence is always allowed to be submitted in any type trial.

Why?

Because a trial is where the truth is found, and the truth of what happened is critical for the jury, to make their verdict sound, fair, just.

So why was it only acquired AFTER the vote was taken? Are the democrats so incompetent as to not know about it at all before the vote? This reeks of their tactics in the Kavanaugh hearings where they kept bringing up last second allegations, one after the other, and each one less credible than the previous.

 

[protectionist]

Most likely, no Democrat proposals at all will be accepted, while every Republican one will. Democrats used their majority inithe House to shut Republicans up, not allowing their witnesses to testify.

Do you expect Republicans to agree to subpoena Mulvaney and Bolton?

Don't know.