What occurred in HOUSE was a regular trial replete with witnesses testyfying UNDER OATH and documents. Not in the Senate. What was it?

Well, if the House did a poor job of holding a "real trial", the Senate had EVERY opportunity to correct that error by having its own "real trial."

Yet, they did not opt for that course, and your comment here suggest you support them in their decision not to have a "real trial."

This suggests your criticism of "real trials" (or lack thereof) is not your actual concern here.

Deducing the actual concern here is left as an exercise for the reader.

Yes. We should not set a precedent saying the Senate should do the House's job in the impeachment process. 

Not should we set a precedent that the Senate be in complete lockstep that it will not impeach a president before hearing testimony from all witnesses.  The Republican senators had their minds made up before they even got the impeachment articles, so Trump will always have that black cloud over his head.  There is no acquittal if there is no trial and there has not been a trial.  No witnesses, no documents, no testimony does not constitute a trial.

Because of the way they process was played. We already heard all the evidence. The House did not prove its case. And did not attempt to fight in court to get any more witnesses. (Even dropped a case when they realized a judge had fast tracked a subpoena case and asked the judge NOT to rule) This amounts to political games. 

Dem Sen also had their minds made up as well. They have been calling for impeachment since before inauguration. How can a person competing for the defendant's job claim they are unbiased?  All politicans are biased. That is the nature of the beast. 

Curiously, Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander (a Republican) said the House managers DID prove their case. He did not, however, believe the crime proven warranted removal.

If you believe Alexander was incorrect, then surely you would have preferred the Trump administration have ample time to present witnesses and evidence to change Alexander's mind, right?

No? I didn't think so....

The only vote that matters is the removal vote. And he says he is not voting to remove. Beyond that I do not care. I am not in his state I cannot vote for or against him. He is also retiring so IF anyone could have defied the will of their constituents he certainly could have.
I want not removal, I think the House should do their job and the Senate to get back to approving judges and other business. 

Re: "I think the House should do their job..."

See, this is why I rarely bother discussing political PROCESS. Because almost any argument most people make about political PROCESS is actually an argument about political IDEOLOGY in disguise.

You most certainly either don't care if the House gets back to legislating, or prefer it would not...unless, of course, your definition of the House "getting back to its job" is passing dozens of bills for Dr.  Evil Turtle McConnell to bottle up and never consider.

Similarly,  were you all gung-ho for the Senate to "get back to approving judges" back when McConnell simply wouldn't consider Merrick Garland for the SCOTUS? I wasn't on the 'Mug back then, but I strongly suspect you either didn't give a crap or supported his action.

You wanted an impeachment acquittal? Fine. But please don't pretend it had anything to do with process arguments. This post was edited by SaltyPebble at February 1, 2020 9:10 AM MST

You didn't hear all the evidence.  Trump prevented witnesses the House wanted to testify from appearing.  That is obstruction in my book.  If Trump is as squeaky clean as he claims, why is he doing everything he can to prevent people from testifying - and don't give me this national security BS because that doesn't fly.  

Let's face is, you would find a reason to excuse Trump and the Republicans from anything and everything to keep your party in power.  Too bad you and your ilk wear blinders and refuse to see what they are doing to this country.  The Constitution means nothing to them.  If it continues, get used to being no better than any dictatorship in the world.

We heard the witnesses the House used to impeach. They claim that was all they needed to prove their case. They chose not to fight for the others. 13 witnesses with no cross examination. It would be obstruction IF the House finished their job and followed up in court and won. And then witnesses were still not made available. That is how it works...that is the balance of power here. No one asked to impeach Obama when he refused to comply with House supeanas. AG Holder was found in contempt for same thing. 

What GOP is doing to the country? Lowest unemployment, better trade deals, raising wages on the bottom end, lower taxes, higher GDP,.....etc. Please do more.

We both know that if the House had subpoenaed the witnesses Trump didn't want to testify, Trump would have tied up the entire process in court for months.  It's really a sham that you can't see what they are doing.  If Trump was running the country more like a president as one arm of the government rather than trying to be a dictator, no one would be trying to impeach him.  As far as the economy, do you think he created that all by himself?  He grabbed on to the Obama coattails of an economy that was on the rise without giving the top 1% and corporations a windfall.

Better trade deals?  I think not.  Farmers are still struggling and will be for some time, the economy has not grown anywhere near the 4-5% Trump predicted, what little new wall Trump began building on the border was scaled by a child, and last week, it fell over in winds of 35 mph, Obamacare has not been repealed, the GOP has no new health plan, his Israeli-Palestinian peace plan is going nowhere fast, and now he's contemplating playing with Social Security and Medicare.  

He has alienated our allies, hadn't stopped North Korea or Iran from enriching their nuclear capabilities, the world is laughing at us and you think he's the best thing since sliced bread.  

Bolton aide Charles Kupperman was supeanad on Oct 25. A judge fast tracked the case it would have been ruled on in Dec. When the Dem realized they were going to get a ruling. Schiff withdrew the supeana. Now if they had proceeded and supeanaed other and enforced in court then they would have a leg to stand on and would likely have won the witnesses vote. They shot themselves in the foot. 
If the trade deals are that bad etc then he will loose in Nov. 

The wall was still under construction...concrete was not cured. I can break concrete with my hand when it is not cured. If the wall does not work why do so many oppose it? 

If NK, Iran, Israel- Pal peace deal fail....he will not be the first one to fail obviously. 
Addressing entitlements....SS/Medicare are not the only entitlements. Looking at waste and fraud are a way of addressing entitlements. Any drastic changes will not apply to any one already on SS...it would apply to younger workers not close to retirement age.

Do you think the Dems wanted to have to waste 2 months every time they issued a subpoena.  

Why do we oppose the wall if it won't work?  Maybe because it's a waste of billions of dollars for nothing.  Use some common sense, why don't you?

The deals don't work if you pull out of them.  Instead of trashing them by walking away, why not re-negotiate?  As for the Israel-Palestine peace deal, would you sign a deal that gives Israel more of your land and you get nothing in return?  Who would do that?  

If waste and fraud is what he's going to try to fix, why hasn't he done that already?  He's been in office for three years.  He claims to be pro-military, yet he's taking millions of dollars out of their budget to put up a wall.  As for the wall and the concrete not during, how is it that this hasn't happened to others.  If it's as you say, you would think we would hear about falling walls all the time.  

Issue all your supeanas. They should have from day one. If this was the route they wanted to go. And certainly not drop them before a judge is getting ready to rule.  So should be have impeached Obama over Benghazi and Fast and Furious he did not honor Congressional supeanas for them?  

Israel deal gives Palistine there own land...more than they have control of now. 

Uncured concrete + high winds + 30 ft wall = leverage that may cause a fence to tilt. 
Why don't we tear down the wall we have? Since it is unneeded. CA border is almost solidly fenced. We do not hear Pelosi saying they do not want it/need it. In fact, they were hollering for their upgrade. 

Military is fine. They got raises under Trump.

I do not know IF he was talking specifically about waste and fraud. The statement only said be was going to look at entitlements. That could be waste/fraud, it could be welfare cuts because it is not needed as much because of the better economy. Could be something else entirely. 

I don't know why I bother to respond to your political comments.  

Are you comparing Benghazi to withholding Ukrainian funds to get a political leg up on Biden?  If you are, I can certainly see why you think the way you do.  Why is is that you can't argue an issue without bringing Obama or Clinton into the mix?  

The only reason that wall didn't fall down completely is because it was erected in front of trees.  Are you telling me that the construction people didn't know that could happen?  There's a big difference between maintaining the walls or fences that are already there and the cost of building new ones.  

The land that Palestine would get is bifurcated - not contiguous from what I can tell.  

"But pay increases are determined by a statutory formula, and Trump in fact requested an amount below the automatic adjustment for 2018. Congress overrode the president’s proposal, and Trump ultimately agreed to fully fund the increase as determined by federal law."  

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/the-president-and-military-pay-raises/

So, you see, Trump would have cheated the military out of it's fully mandated pay raise.  He wants everyone to think he's pro-military, but he isn't anything other than pro-Trump.

I am comparing the failure to produce witnesses and documents supenaed by Congress in both the oversight investigations into Benghazi and Fast and Furious. 

If the miltary raises are automatic why were there none under Obama? And if it is true...the Dems should use that and make it clear that happened.

I cannot explain why a contractor did or did not do anything. Or what they did or did not know.  But I know concrete....and uncured concrete is weak. But I am sure it will be fixed. 

Military raises are not automatic, they are tied to a formula which is likely tied to cost of living and/or inflation rates, both of which were low under Obama. 

As for subpoenaing witnesses, they pulled the Kupperman subpoena because they didn't want to get mired in a lawsuit for months.  Adam Schiff today said that they are nine months into the court battles regarding the subpoena for McCann's testimony, which is exactly what I said to you earlier, before I knew that Schiff said that.  

That judge would have ruled already. He was slated to rule in Dec. If House is not willing to persue their own supeanas they should not expect the Senate to do their job. If they had the Sen maybe they could have expected it. But it is still not Sen job to investigate in impeachment. We are going in circles. We disagree. And that is just the way it is. :)

I thought both the House and the Senate were on the same side (America's) when it comes to oversight of the president when it comes to finding out the truth about what actually happened with the Ukraine situation and what Trump did.

It is not specifically the job of the House to investigate---it is the job of the Congress to investigate.

The investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere---For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Why do you not know these things????

I disagree that "we" are going in circles---although I am reminded of the phrase "running around in circles like a chicken with its head cut-off."

I do not know whatever could have made anyone believe that the Congress is not partisan. And looking out for their side.  (Each also has approx half of the citizens on their side as well) 
In the impeachment process is it the House's job to bring the articles of impeachment and theeir job to present that evidence and convince the JURY of Senators to agree with their articles and that they are indicting an action worthy of removal. That would involve investigations and Senate may choose to help before articles are passed but not during the "impeachment trial". 

Do not ask the jury to do the prosecutor's job. 

I
Why do you not know this?

Oh, just guessing---maybe the oaths our public officials swear before God when they are installed---as the Senate Chaplain reminded all Senators before the great majority of those GOP senators sold their self respect, their ethics, and their souls to the devil.

You argue fairness and justice when you think that supports your position best and then you switch to the partisan approach.

Let me guess why---

You are a lot like me---

When I know for a fact that erroneous information is being put forth as actual reality, I feel a moral obligation to respond.

I know we think alike in many ways.  If something I've said turns out to be untrue, I will make every effort to correct my statement.  I'm not afraid to admit it when I'm wrong.

Perhaps the final cost for all that the GOP is doing for---or more likely "to"---has not yet been accurately estimated.

It may well prove not to have been worth it.

It's dangerous to assume that the trestle over the gorge for the train will magically appear like it did in Back to the Future III.