• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Democrats and Republicans Voted on Witnesses

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,329
Reaction score
82,715
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How Democrats and Republicans Voted on Witnesses in the Trump Impeachment Trial

1/31/20
The Senate on Friday rejected a measure to consider calling new witnesses and evidence in President Trump’s impeachment trial. The vote, 51 to 49, was largely along party lines. See how every senator voted.
Click to expand...

See precisely how every Senator voted in regards to hearing fact-witnesses and viewing relevant documents. 51 GOP Senators defeated the motion.

For the first and only time in US history, an impeachment Senate trial will allow neither witnesses nor documents.

Remember this thread. It may come in handy on Election Day - 3 November 2020.
 
Rogue Valley said:
How Democrats and Republicans Voted on Witnesses in the Trump Impeachment Trial



See precisely how every Senator voted in regards to hearing fact-witnesses and viewing relevant documents. 51 GOP Senators defeated the motion.

For the first and only time in US history, an impeachment Senate trial will allow neither witnesses nor documents.

Remember this thread. It may come in handy on Election Day - 3 November 2020.
Click to expand...

Was there ever an impeachment trial where no crime was alleged?
 
Rogue Valley said:
How Democrats and Republicans Voted on Witnesses in the Trump Impeachment Trial



See precisely how every Senator voted in regards to hearing fact-witnesses and viewing relevant documents. 51 GOP Senators defeated the motion.

For the first and only time in US history, an impeachment Senate trial will allow neither witnesses nor documents.

Remember this thread. It may come in handy on Election Day - 3 November 2020.
Click to expand...

This is the first time in impeachment Senate trials - all prior 2 of them - that the articles of impeachment did not cite any specific statute or law that was broken - the only time no constitutional basis was even alleged.

This will have no effect on the election one way or the other and why you think you posting what others have already posted hundreds of times is significant is just weird.
 
washunut said:
Was there ever an impeachment trial where no crime was alleged?
Click to expand...

silly-man-bag-over-his-head-37563416.jpg
 
joko104 said:
This is the first time in impeachment Senate trials - all prior 2 of them - that the articles of impeachment did not cite any specific statute or law that was broken - the only time no constitutional basis was even alleged.

This will have no effect on the election one way or the other and why you think you posting what others have already posted hundreds of times is significant is just weird.
Click to expand...

silly-man-bag-over-his-head-37563416.jpg
 
Rogue Valley said:
For the first and only time in US history, an impeachment Senate trial will allow neither witnesses nor documents.
Click to expand...

It also was the first impeachment trial held over an absence of criminal accusation. The proper place to remove an elected officer for matters of distrust is an election, not an impeachment trial. Don't act like the whole process was not a partisan ploy. Even Democrats couldn't keep a straight face during their impeachment vote in the House.

Moreover, if you really bought into what Adam Schiff was saying, then you shouldn't have any problem with not seeing more witnesses. After all, as far as Schiff is concerned, he had all the proofs he needed. Don't blame Republicans for agreeing with him.

Finally, I recall that the first sham trial held in the Senate was held 20 years ago. Over considerably worse accusations (Clinton committed purjury) and hard evidence, Democrats did not condemn one of their one. I wouldn't act all sanctimonious as if Democrats today would be any less partial than Democrats back in the late 90s if it was their guy on trial.


The accusations were a sham, the hearings were a sham, and now you're shocked that the trial was just a public display to give Trump a chance to talk back to Democrats... Wow, just wow.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
This is the first time in impeachment Senate trials - all prior 2 of them - that the articles of impeachment did not cite any specific statute or law that was broken - the only time no constitutional basis was even alleged.
Click to expand...

We're almost four years into a massive nationwide tantrum from people who cannot accept electoral results when they don't go their way.

Donald Trump looks to me like a typical Republican president. He tends to favor cutting taxes and reducing regulations. The only salient difference is that he is obnoxious, arrogant and he has hell of a big mouth. What you have seen, from the years of pointless investigation into Russiagate and then jumping on the Ukrainegate bandwagon was a long, unending series of desperate attempt by people on the left to undo the outcome of 2016. For once, the big guy in the Oval Office gives them the finger. He throws care for political correctness out of the window and he just tells them to piss off. He's not going to play by their little verbal rules and roll up in a ball under the desk, sucking his tumb...

And that's what they don't like.


Grow up! Enough with the Trump Derangement Syndrom. I'm not a huge fan of the guy, but years of crybabies yelling Orange Man Bad is starting to make him look comparatively very good and sane.
 
TheEconomist said:
It also was the first impeachment trial held over an absence of criminal accusation. The proper place to remove an elected officer for matters of distrust is an election, not an impeachment trial. Don't act like the whole process was not a partisan ploy. Even Democrats couldn't keep a straight face during their impeachment vote in the House.

Moreover, if you really bought into what Adam Schiff was saying, then you shouldn't have any problem with not seeing more witnesses. After all, as far as Schiff is concerned, he had all the proofs he needed. Don't blame Republicans for agreeing with him.

Finally, I recall that the first sham trial held in the Senate was held 20 years ago. Over considerably worse accusations (Clinton committed purjury) and hard evidence, Democrats did not condemn one of their one. I wouldn't act all sanctimonious as if Democrats today would be any less partial than Democrats back in the late 90s if it was their guy on trial.


The accusations were a sham, the hearings were a sham, and now you're shocked that the trial was just a public display to give Trump a chance to talk back to Democrats... Wow, just wow.
Click to expand...

"Wow just wow" is right. You have a computer, there's no excuse for your ignorance. Of course there were articles of impeachment and of course he was found guilty on both charges and impeached.

The first article charges him with abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to assist him in his re-election campaign by damaging Democratic rivals. The second article charges him with obstruction of Congress for blocking testimony and refusing to provide documents in response to House subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry.

Read the Articles of Impeachment Against President Trump - The New York Times
 
HumblePi said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

You realize you are siding with the party that held a sham impeachment vote for partisan reason and now complain about Republicans basically doing what Democrats did for Bill Clinton?

They broke the rule 20 years ago over far worse. The chicken have come home to roost. Enjoy.
 
TheEconomist said:
You realize you are siding with the party that held a sham impeachment vote for partisan reason and now complain about Republicans basically doing what Democrats did for Bill Clinton?

They broke the rule 20 years ago over far worse. The chicken have come home to roost. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

"You do realize" is a trumper's favorite way to begin a response, makes the other person look dumb, right? Yeah, that's how you guys roll. Trump was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, 'you do realize' that, right?

Nixon.gif
 
HumblePi said:
"Wow just wow" is right. You have a computer, there's no excuse for your ignorance. Of course there were articles of impeachment and of course he was found guilty on both charges and impeached.
Click to expand...

You should cure your own ignorance: The Senate has the sole power to try. He was not found guilty (because only the Senate could do that). He was accused by the House. That's not the same thing, except to an authoritarian lunatic.

HumblePi said:
The first article charges him with abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to assist him in his re-election campaign by damaging Democratic rivals. The second article charges him with obstruction of Congress for blocking testimony and refusing to provide documents in response to House subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry.
Click to expand...

I know what are the accusations. That's why I pointed out that neither of those things are crimes.

Besides, these claims are baseless. The first one relies on a conjecture about the intentions of Donald Trump. That's weak, unless you can catch the man saying this is exactly what he is doing. The second charge is laughable. If it rubs against your delicate skin that the president would refuse to cooperate with an hostile House, you need a thicker skin. Congress could compel Trump to hand over both of those things by taking this through the courts and all the way up to the SCOTUS. If the claims of Democrats have any merit, the SCOTUS would side with them. At that moment and only at that moment, a refusal to cooperate is a crime: obstruction of justice.


The fact of the matter is that even if I overlook the weakness of the case and just give Democrats both articles as true, I'd still offer you the same conclusion: that's not grave enough to warrant impeachment, especially not in the current political climate.
 
HumblePi said:
"You do realize" is a trumper's favorite way to begin a response, makes the other person look dumb, right? Yeah, that's how you guys roll. Trump was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, 'you do realize' that, right?
Click to expand...

1. Trump was impeached over obstruction of Congress and abuse of power, neither of which are high crimes or misdemeanors. It's a political ploy, a dirty political ploy by a desperate and fractured party whose only shot to play was a hail marry.

2. You really think I am a Trump supporter? My God... You realize I display my political leaning for everyone to see, don't you? I am not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
 
washunut said:
Was there ever an impeachment trial where no crime was alleged?
Click to expand...

For the millionth time, you don't need a crime.

First of all, the POTUS enjoys powers we as citizens don't. These powers can be abused. It would be impossible to codify pardoning power, for example.

Secondly, impeachment is a political process. The judge and jury are elected officials, bound not to codes of law, but to their constituents, and loyal to their respective parties.
 
Rogue Valley said:
EPpg35VU0AAStMi
Click to expand...

NOt only is that meme over-the-top foolishness, it shows you havent a clue as to what democracy is or how it works. Trump was democratically elected, he was democratically acquitted of partisan charges, and he will face the voters in a democratic election this fall.
 
HumblePi said:
"You do realize" is a trumper's favorite way to begin a response, makes the other person look dumb, right? Yeah, that's how you guys roll. Trump was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, 'you do realize' that, right?

Nixon.gif
Click to expand...

He was impeached for what a partisan House felt were high crimes. Just because the House labels something a high crime doesnt make it so. You have to convince the senate to agree with you. They didnt. Hence the acquittal. Make a better case next time and understand that you need to convince more people than just the loony, hateful left.
 
The Senate royally blew it.
 
Fletch said:
He was impeached for what a partisan House felt were high crimes. Just because the House labels something a high crime doesnt make it so. You have to convince the senate to agree with you. They didnt. Hence the acquittal. Make a better case next time and understand that you need to convince more people than just the loony, hateful left.
Click to expand...

Black will always be black and white will always be white. We can argue about the thousands of shades between the two, they are arguably 'white or black'. Richard Nixon spied on the DNC, he was found guilty of such and impeached. Trump was found guilty of coercing a foreign government to help him win his re-election. There is not a vast divide of shades between Nixon and Trump and right and wrong. Trump's crimes were clearly 'black' with no shades of white in between. It should have never been argued by Alan Dershowitz that his crimes should be something acceptable to the Senate. Trump's behaviors were impeachable offenses.
 
"Republicans" need to be punished long term at the polls.
 
Why would Republicans want witnesses? They're covering for a mafia dude.
 
Michael Cole said:
For the millionth time, you don't need a crime.

First of all, the POTUS enjoys powers we as citizens don't. These powers can be abused. It would be impossible to codify pardoning power, for example.

Secondly, impeachment is a political process. The judge and jury are elected officials, bound not to codes of law, but to their constituents, and loyal to their respective parties.
Click to expand...

I agree it is totally a political process. You can impeach for anything or nothing according to House democrats.

Using that logic is seems silly to call for a "fair trial".
 
TheEconomist said:
It also was the first impeachment trial held over an absence of criminal accusation.
Click to expand...

Point us to where a "criminal action" is a Constitutional requirement for impeachment.

I'll remind you that the US Criminal Code did not exist when the founders authored the Constitution.
 
washunut said:
Was there ever an impeachment trial where no crime was alleged?
Click to expand...

Two crimes were alleged, the GAO named the abuse of power , and Clinton was brought up on obstruction of congress, so that was Trump's other charge. The Republicans are giving Trump a pass for political reasons that they will surely pay for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom