100 thoughts on “Impeachment Trial Day 8: Senators to pose questions as case enters new phase

  1. ترامب هو من ارتكب الأوساخ المتراكمة والكوارث والجرائم في البنتاغون وجميع اجهزة الدولة الحكومية ترامب ارتكب اضرار كثيرة في الإقتصاد ووزارة الدفاع والسياسيات الخارجية والداخلية واضرار في اشياء كثيره اخرى ولاخيار أمام الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية سوى الذهاب الى دولة روسيا الاتحادية خاضعة ومهزومه وعقد معهم إتفاقيات وتعاهدات وبشروط روسيا الاتحادية وإستسلام الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية لصين وروسيا وهذا الواقع والحقيقة وعلى ترامب وإدارتة الإقلاع في أول رحلة إلى روسيا الاتحادية

  2. The defense just contradicted Schiff words on what is covered by privy when they said they will call him (SCHIFF) as a witness. What a bozo. He just admitted he doesn't want to call Trump in reply. And Schiff even said he would like to call Trumps council, but said he couldn't. Contradicted now. Trump council is brilliant for wanting to call Schiff as a star witness. He will invoked immunity.

  3. (Schiff blows it) Why do so many leave this administration (2:21:52) (have a bone to pick?) (he got all choked up in his word twists) .. LOL SCHIFF just contradicted himself. And Trumps team just got Schiff on trying to call Bolton. He left the administration because 'he has a bone to pick'

  4. So Repubs think that tarnishing Joe Biden will hurt his campaign? Sorry you morons, but Trump has so tarnished the office of the President that any rival candidate really would have to shoot someone on 5th Ave before anyone would think that that candidate is any worse than the scumbag currently occupying the White House. Repubs are so short-sighted that they don't stop to think that all the rules and norms that they're breaking now can be turned around on them in the future. It works both ways, you Trumpist idiots.

  5. seeing clips of Congressmen and Senators from twenty years ago still there is the best reason why we need term limits,, we used to have term limits with the vote, but now it cost so much to run that decent, honest young people just can not afford to run. Millionaires have seen to that..

  6. So don’t believe 5000 news journalist in the United States all saying the same thing, but instead believe poor excuse for a man Who lies every time he opens his mouth, who’s been a ConMan his entire life, Who sides with Vladimir Putin and the rocket man, Who is against United States and its allies, Who works with criminals daily and then says “I don’t know that man” who’s half of his administration are already in prison and the rest on their way.? Yes let’s believe Adolph Trump Hitler, Who will be empowered if he’s not removed, and that will change our presidency into a dictatorship.

  7. Ok so if the presidents lawyers win using the concept that VP bidens son is conflict of interest and this should be investigated, I do believe the lawyers also opened a case for Trump's grown kids for the same manner. This also would make trump unquantified for presidency just as Biden.

  8. Stop talking about the Constitution bc politicians fight it all the time look at Virginia and gun bans…Not to mention Trump used his Constitutional rights and the Dems said it was obstruction…their are clueless of the Constitution…when they do things they ignore it but if someone else does then they point to the Constitution…the hypocricy is off the charts on BOTH Dems and Rep…We The People Are Changing the system and will get our Country back…Dems and Rep arent the way…their way has ruined our inner cities, made them rich as we struggle etc etc etc…Change Is Coming!

  9. ‪OMG Did, Alan Dershowitz (1 of Trump’s lawyers), offer the broad defense, that a president cannot be removed from office for actions to improve re-election prospects if he believes his re-election is in the national interest?‬

  10. Sekulow: "After 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case… [pauses for response] That's what you said."
    Schiff: "We did."

    Sekulow: "Well then I don't think we need any witnesses."
    29 Jan 2020

  11. Sekulow: "After 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case… [pauses for response] That's what you said."
    Schiff: "We did."

    Sekulow: "Well then I don't think we need any witnesses."
    29 Jan 2020

  12. You know the rest of the world doesn't understand your black spider tile behind you in your statement! I do! I'm watching all of you. You keep telling the lies. You will be left in darkness for eternity from your Creator. The money, power, and woman are not worth it. Just saying! This is a warning for you. I see what you do behind the curtains. I have not sold my soul even for the billions and power they have offered me. God has seen me stand strong. You that are first shall be last, and those last/me shall be first. I love God. God is great and all powerful. The day is coming that all your lies will stand before you as my own have!

  13. We are being told that committing abuse of power by the president is OK, move on, there is nothing to see here, get used to.
    Mr. Alan Dershowitz balancing act finding ways to distort the history on how the constitution was build was a clown style performance. Moreover, he showed us that he is not a scholar, but a distorted, an opportunist seeking the limelight again. What a shame.

  14. No more lame excuses!! Who gives a rats a*^ if Bolton was a “war monger” in our nations history, he won’t be the last. Or too that he was a former disgruntled employee. That’s why witnesses are invited to hear events from both sides of the isle. I don’t hear anyone keeping tRUMP the self-proclaimed “Genius” from presenting his events to the public about why, “it was a perfect call” innocence stance.

  15. ALL of these "Rape-publicans" are facing the choice between "Secrecy and Suppression" OR "Truth and Transparency" and Bloomberg SHOULD be spending the money to Keep it in the minds of the American people.

  16. So, Adam, arguendo, what exactly is wrong with a quid pro quo anyway? Do you mean that millions of dollars should just flow freely with zero conditionals? You are trying to impeach Trump for being a good steward of hard-earned taxpayer dollars!

  17. "Drug deal"? Freudian slip from Bolton!
    I think those who were opposed to conditionalities in principle were more worried about disruption of kickbacks!

  18. "That's not the kind of scholarship that should influence your decisions"! EXACTLY – not all scholars are equally integritous because scholars are mere imperfect men!

  19. The Left as always is willing to not just burn the whole house down in their fever to win at any cost, but utterly destroy the foundations too!

  20. ONE
    MORE
    TIME for the hard of hearing: The HOUSE should have called all the witnesses they needed, why did they not DO THEIR JOB?
    Dismiss this shampeachment and they can take a second bite at the apple and do it properly (if they can still muster the support arefter this disgraceful display of misfeasance)

  21. LOL when the facts and law and logic are all arrayed against you of course you;re arguing uphill, and of course you will engage in inappropriate talk.

  22. Incorrect, Val – the two are a false equivalence.
    The Trumps are trained, educated and experienced in their businesses; any benefits from their father's office is incidental and indeed overshadowed by their father's name recognition BEFORE he ever became President.
    Hunter Biden was patently unqualified by any proper standard and his father's name would be completely irrelevant BUT FOR THE FACT that he was VPOTUS!

  23. Excellent additional point! There is a fetid cloud of corruption around Burisma, that at the very LEAST singles it out.

  24. What a Joke I hope they drag this thing out till next November and lets call all those crooked democrats so we can watch them lie jail the hole damn bunch of them

  25. 😀 Look at them tremble when they see Philbin button up his jacket! They know he is about to calmly blow them up!

  26. House subpoenaed individuals to testify. Trump said no and claimed Executive Privilege. "The HOUSE should have called all the witnesses they needed, why did they not DO THEIR JOB?" Um, they tried to call witnesses, but Trump blocked. Facts are facts.

  27. Look lady they brought nothing to the table. Good lord they are impeaching a President! Where’s your prior proof? You just now pulling it out your arse? So sick of it.

  28. That's how the Left operates – continuously recycling lies and recycling questions that have already been answered.
    Like toddlers, they think that eventually get their own way …

  29. Jerry that was weak!
    If investigations into corruption are ok and Biden was involved, what could possibly be wrong with an investigation into BIDEN?
    And WHY DID YOU vote to impeach?

  30. My opinion…if he stays why should the righteous hearts of the great American people go vote…why believe still in the Constitution…why believe in the justice system…why…why continue to believe we can be great when allowed those in seat to show that the strength of this country lay on the back of lies…

  31. I was confused and then i clicked on the individual names here and all of these accounts have no likes and no subscriptions no trace of any activity

    SO MANY BOTS JESUS CHRIST

    ur welcome to look urself if u dont believe me!

  32. "Why The Senate Shouldn’t Call More Impeachment Witnesses
    Democrats should not be permitted to ambush the president with information they failed to obtain as a result of their oversight, neglect, or unquenchable thirst to impeach."
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/29/why-the-senate-shouldnt-call-more-impeachment-witnesses/
    29 Jan 2020
    The impeachment trial of President Trump is in full force, and congressional Democrats are already blaming Republicans for their alleged unwillingness to allow additional witnesses. While this ploy was not unexpected, and Senate Republicans have not entirely ruled out permitting additional witnesses, there are various reasons additional witnesses should not be permitted.

    To begin, there is a very compelling argument that the impeachment has been a sham from the start. The president was not afforded the right to due process, Republican members of the House were not permitted to call or question witnesses (i.e., the whistleblower, Adam Schiff, Joe or Hunter Biden), and the resolution passed in the House gave Schiff the final say as to who was ultimately permitted to testify.

    Tangentially, there was no evidence of a crime, let alone an impeachable offense, despite the fact that Democrats were in control of the entire process while it was in the House. Given the foregoing, there is no reason to permit any additional witnesses to testify, as this would merely prolong, and legitimize, this sham process.

    A second reason additional witnesses should not be permitted is because House Democrats had the chance to call them during their inquiry. According to Schiff, “What Senator Collins and the other senators need to realize is we did try to get these witnesses in the House. We subpoenaed many of these witnesses. And because of the President’s obstruction, they ignored those lawful subpoenas. Donald Trump’s Justice Department is in court saying the House cannot go to court to enforce its subpoenas.”

    What Schiff is really saying is that various witnesses refused to comply with House subpoenas and the House did not want to issue the necessary subpoenas or wait until a court ruled on their enforceability or any objections thereto. Rather, Schiff and his Democratic colleagues rushed to vote on the articles of impeachment without following the proper procedure to secure the testimony of these various witnesses or obtain the requested documents.

    Although House Democrats “botched” the process, they are now blaming Republicans in the Senate, who are opposed to, or apprehensive about, permitting additional witnesses from being called during trial. Additionally, while some Democrats are also accusing Republicans of refusing to hold a “fair trial,” Senate Republicans have every right to prevent any Democratic efforts to call additional witnesses.

    While some Democrats will likely assert that they posess “newly discovered” evidence, Republicans will likely assert that the Democrats in the House could have discovered this “evidence” before voting on the articles had they followed the appropriate steps. As such, Democrats should not be permitted to ambush the president and his legal team with information they failed to obtain as a result of their oversight, neglect, or unquenchable thirst to quickly impeach the president.

    When the House presented its case for impeachment during the inquiry phase, it was in control of the entire process pursuant to its resolution. As a result, House Democrats had the opportunity to subpoena any witnesses and documents they felt were necessary. They also had the opportunity to challenge any objections to these subpoenas in an effort to secure compliance.

    Instead of doing this, House Democrats erroneously put the onus on the Senate. However, this misconstrues the roles of the House and Senate in impeachment proceedings, where the House has the sole power to impeach (which includes any necessary investigation), and the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments.

    In this case, the Democratic-led House, obviously realizing the weakness of its case, is attempting to “cure” its errors by tasking the Senate with the investigative role. The Senate should not comply with this unreasonable request because it could prejudice the president.

    For example, the president’s legal team, in part, likely relied on the prior witness testimony when formulating its defense. This is no different from a trial in the traditional sense, where the parties have the right to question and depose all witnesses and experts before the trial so no surprises come up during trial.

    In Trump’s case, not only did House Democrats prevent Republicans and the president from calling their own witnesses, they also failed to issue subpoenas or pursue a final court ruling relative any subpoenas relating to witnesses and documents. Democrats are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. In other words, while they seek to question specific witnesses, such as John Bolton, they oppose any efforts to question others, including, but not limited to, Hunter Biden.

    If the Senate decides not to allow additional witnesses, congressional Democrats can look to their colleagues in the House, whose obsession to impeach the president meant they failed to issue the necessary subpoenas or to patiently seek for a court to rule on their enforceability. Of course, in a perfect world, all witnesses would be permitted to testify for full transparency. However, impeachment is a political, not a criminal, process, and the world of politics is not a perfect world.

    The Democrats in the House voted to impeach along party lines, and presented two extremely weak and insufficient articles to the Senate. They rushed to impeach the president before obtaining whatever evidence, information, or witnesses they felt they needed. Now they are crying about fairness. The Senate has no obligation to save them.

  33. Will someone tell the Anchor lady to hush when the hearing starts. I would like to hear what the Justice is saying but she seems to think what she is saying is more important. It is so annoying.

  34. Republicans need to vote , don’t bend an inch , if need be fight fire with fire , stop caving to every Democrat demand , Democrats do not own the entire government . Trump supporters are counting on you to protect our vote

  35. Two points I haven't heard addressed: 1. Why did trump release the aid when he thought Ukraine was too corrupt? He should have stuck to his guns. 2. According to Dershowitz, Bill Clinton is innocent and it was a mistake to impeach him. Can they un-impeach him & correct all the history books?

  36. "How Schiff Talked The Senate Out Of Believing Him: Day 1 of Impeachment Q&A: Schiff Undermines His Case for Witnesses" 30 Jan 2020
    Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) made three major blunders on Wednesday during the first of two days of questions and answers from Senators in the president’s impeachment trial.

    The first came when Schiff delivered a carefully crafted PowerPoint presentation explaining why he had “protected” the so-called “whistleblower” who filed the complaint about President Donald Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president.

    Whatever the merits of that argument, Schiff was essentially telling the Senate that it could not see a witness who was material the president’s defense and the overall case itself.

    Later, in response to a question by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and David Perdue (R-GA), Schiff argued against giving the Senate the transcript of the House Intelligence Committee’s closed-door interview with the Intelligence Committee Inspector General (ICIG), who apparently told members about the way the “whistleblower” complaint was filed. Schiff tried to argue that the transcript needed to be kept secret.

    These two arguments undermined Schiff’s case that a “fair trial” requires witnesses and documents in the Senate. As the White House lawyers pointed out, Schiff only wants witnesses and documents for one side.

    The third major blunder was when Schiff tried to argue that the president had committed “bribery” and “extortion.” Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin responded with the answer of the night, pointing out that the House’s articles of impeachment said nothing about bribery or extortion, and that an ordinary court would have declared a mistrial had Schiff tried to allege crimes that were not in the actual indictment.

    Having dug that hole, Schiff and the Democrats kept digging. House manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) tried to argue that “bribery” was contained within the first article of impeachment. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) tried to make a case that the president had committed bribery. And Schiff tried to argue that “abuse of power” was worse than bribery, indeed the worst impeachable crime — though it is not in the Constitution.

    Those three moments damaged Schiff’s credibility and likely shifted momentum within the Republican caucus against supporting a motion to call more witnesses and prolong the runaway impeachment trial.

    Democrats apparently believe they scored points when Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) asked the White House whether President Trump had ever asked Ukraine about the Bidens in connection with the issue of corruption before the July 25th phone call with the Ukrainian president. It was a perceptive question, one that spotted an interesting gap in the House’s factual record.

    The White House answered that it did not know, because it was confined to the facts on the record. That excited Democrats, because even though the House managers had argued that Trump never spoke about corruption, which is plainly contradicted by the record, now they could shift the argument. The president only spoke about the Bidens, they said, after he became a political threat in the 2020 presidential race.

    But there is another possibility: as Philbin pointed out, Trump only became aware of the problems with the Bidens and Burisma later, either because of Rudy Giuliani’s research in Ukraine, or belated media reports. Three days before the Ukraine call, he noted, the Washington Post published an article: “As vice president, Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production. Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.”

    The lengthy investigative article revisited questions reporters first raised five years before, when Hunter Biden was appointed to Burisma’s board while his father was vice president. It included a whole section recalling the story of Vice President Biden ordering the Ukrainian prosecutor fired. One expert is cited as telling the Post: “I think there is a conflict of interest even if it doesn’t break any laws … It’s a big deal.”

    It remains to be seen whether Philbin’s answer reassures Collins and Murkowski. Democrats hope they will want to call more witnesses. But as Day 2 begins, Adam Schiff has a lot of work to do to repair his case.

  37. His counsel keeps stating that the House is trying to impeach him because of what they think was in his head, but there is a problem with this statement because he Said on the front lawn of the White House that Ukraine and China should launch investigations into the Biden's. So that argument goes bye bye

  38. Clinton does something against his wife and the paranoids are for impeachment. President Paranoid does something against the country and the paranoids are against impeachment.

  39. NOTE that the Javelins – the most critical part of the aid – was never held up!
    Exactly what case do the House Managers have???

  40. In real life, threatening to withhold money until someone does what you ask is called Extortion!!!!! Let John Bolton testify. Both side are corrupt. Can none of you put our country first???!!!!

  41. Democrats already had 17 witnesses and republicans had 0, is that justice, and they want even more? is that due process? Schiff had ample time to have Bolton as a witness, the house could have gotten that subpoena , and they didn't do that. They went directly with giving subpoena without the house, that is not due process the subpoena were invalid.

  42. So many times the 2016 election with Russian interference is brought up during Trump impeachment trial litigation. Call Mueller to testify as to why this plays any signifigance.

  43. Once again. #demoKKKrat Doug Jones shows America he DOES NOT REPRESENT ALABAMA. HE IS UNTRUSTWORTHY. He sides with the “radical left” like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

  44. how come adam schiff says there was no witness' I saw 17 witness testimony in this impeachment proccess. doesnt make any sense. if he forgot 1 witness or didnt supena him.to court maybe he shouldve done that before he got this far. bolton tried to testify. he went in to court and said to a federal judge on one had I have executive privilage and on the other I have a congressional supena just tell me what to do. congress cancelled his testimony and ask the judge to not open a case. it happened with one other person too dr cupperman. where congress cancelled thier testimony and said no court. seems like they just want to break rules they shouldve followed to make fake charges against trump. claiming he blocked witness' but in the case of bolton congress blocked bolton. if they couldnt prove thier case now maybe they shouldve taken more time. and if they still couldnt find an impeachable offense they shouldve just dropped.it.

  45. DAYTIME FANS: WHY IS CBS DEVALUING OUR WISHES BY SHOWING THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS DURING THE DAYTIME? WHY IS THE STATION NOT ADVISING CONGRESS THAT THE HEARINGS WILL BE TELEVISED DURING THE NIGHTLY NEWS HOUR TO ALLOW THE DAYTIME WORKFORCE TO HAVE BENEFIT OF THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS? This would make more logical sense while capturing a larger voter population for viewing or is CBS not interested in their Nighttime News Hour Ratings😡

  46. How did a rube like Nadler ever get elected? He is nothing more than an old soviet red, as corrupt as they come. I won't even comment on his appearance, other than to say he needs a new tailor. How can you take anyone seriously when they wear their pants around there chest? He's a disgrace.

  47. Prediction: GUILTY! The next POTUS, Andrew Yang, is CONVICTED of unifying and healing the United States of America after an era of deep dysfunctional division with his earthshattering proposals of the “Freedom Dividend” and “Democracy Dollars”. Andrew Yang is a witty wordsmith from Schenectady.

  48. It’s just like I said in the beginning: the impeachment will be acquitted, which is when liberals will then get all confused and mad saying “but I thought he was impeached!!”

  49. Even IF the senate feels that the house did not fully do its job; that's not an excuse for the Senate not to do theirs. This is the Impeachment Trail for Donald Trump… not a trail of the house. I am disappointed in the justice systems failure to focus.

  50. This is rich…"Efforts to cheat in an election are always done in proximity to an election" ~~Adam Schiff, the master of Freudian Slips

  51. Tell me please Democrats here, exactly when was it that the Joe Biden-Hunter Biden corruption and quid pro quo and Barisma Bad,…when again was that debunked? When was that shown to be a mere "conspiracy theory" of the tin foil hat 7.0 on the Richter Scale? Did any of you ever figure out why Obama didn't give Joe "the nod?" Asking for a friend.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *