GOP Dismissive To New Evidence on Trump's Ukraine Dealings As Impeachment Trial Begins

Newsweak ^ | 1/16/20 | Ramsey Touchberry

[Libloather]

As the Senate officially embarked Thursday on an impeachment trial against a president for just the third time in U.S. history, Senate Republicans pressed ahead amid two bombshells about President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine.

The news could have thrown a wrench into the proceedings and pressured Republicans to be concerned about probable wrongdoing. But GOP senators appeared apathetic to the findings of a government watchdog agency that determined Trump violated the law by withholding military aid from Ukraine and that new evidence further detailed the president's efforts to force the ouster of a former ambassador and pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

The new evidence should "absolutely not" be taken into consideration during the trial, said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.). "That's not our job. The job is to respond to what we've been given in the case that was been built by the House."

[Libloather]

San Fran Gran Nan waited a month to officially deliver criminal charges against the President of the United States. There was plenty of time for her to change anything she wanted to. Maybe she screwed up. Darn the luck.

[P.O.E.]

That’s why I call BS on the “bombshell”. It’s the Dem’s own fault - they rushed their own hearings, suppressed and coaxed testimony, gave false statements to the press, then sat on it for a month.

They’ve been crying wolf about having evidence for three years now.

[Texas Eagle]

It took the brainiacs at GAO almost 3 years to come to that conclusion?

[Robert A Cook PE]

Worse. It is not even “evid ence”.. It is “claims” made by biased outsiders.

[goldstategop]

Democrat media wasn’t interested when GAO found Obama broke the law on seven occasions.

Suddenly, its the new gold standard for determining Trump’s fate. Puhleeeaze.

Enough already.

[jospehm20]

They keep “forgetting” that there is an actual transcript of the call out there. Everything else is BS.

[KobraKai]

The GOP should dismiss this entire debacle! Just like the MSM dismisses every bad thing about any Democrat! I haven’t seen one thing on the MSM about the newest Bernie Bro and the Gulags!

[wastoute]

Nancy wants to turn impeachment from an “event” into a continuous operation, like a chain drag or conveyor belt, that she can just dump new crap on and have it just automatically zoom over to the Senate. Mitch won’t have it, I would bet.

[SkyPilot]

The "collusion and conspiracy" that took place was between Schiff, Pelosi, the Democrat, and their lackeys at the GAO.

The GAO is not a "Watch Dog Agency." Despite its claims, it is nothing but an auditing agency that rubber stamps Congressional bills on spending.

Everything else it claims it can do is overreach and bluster. It "supports" Congressional oversight, which can and does mean anything they want it to mean. They are nothing but a bunch of henchmen that do the bidding of those in power. They are not "independent" and they are not credible.

The GAO is not a law enforcement agency, and it has no independent authority to pass judgment on the President or his actions.

It is clear, even to a 5 year old, that GAO government employees and the Democrats met in secret and hashed out a plan to drop a midnight hand grenade into this impeachment fiasco.

"Collusion and Conspiracy."

Furthermore, they suck at their job.

For decades, the bureaucrats in this building have missed the mark on what Congressional "programs and spending" would really cost. By factors of 10, and 100.

If they were an private accounting firm, they would have been thrown out of business years ago.

[SES1066]

Some FACTS about the GAO.

1) It is a LEGISLATIVE BRANCH operation, wholly owned and controlled.

2) This report was initiated by the #2 House Democrat, Stenny Hoyer (D-MD).

3) The current chief of the GAO is an Obama Administration alum.

4) The Ukraine aid that President Trump ‘illegally delayed’ was also being delayed by normal allocation procedures. The award of the aid was still done weeks ahead of the September 30th go/no-go decision date.

5) As a ‘legal’ finding in past declarations by the GAO of illegal actions against previous Administrations of both parties, it has always been seen as more political than factual.

In short, it is just another fart by the SWAMP against their main enemy.

[goldstategop]

Mitch isn’t going to allow Democrats to introduce “new” evidence through the backdoor. He’s not going to allow the impeachment trial to be turned into a circus.

Democrats can proceed with what they’ve got when the court resumes on Tuesday or face dismissal of their case.

Its up to them and they don’t run the Senate.

[wastoute]

Nor is Mitch IMHO going to let Trump turn the Senate into a Trump Rally.

[Texas Eagle]

The "evidence" supports President Trump's actions.

The funds were released within the allotted time frame AND in accordance with the U.S. Ukraine Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed by President Clinton when Gropin' Joe Biden was a Senator.

[goldstategop]

Mitch is working in lockstep with the President and his legal team. This is a political trial.

Democrats did whatever they wanted in the House. In the Senate, they’re in the minority.

[wastoute]

I never claimed Mitch wasn’t working closely with Trump. But some freepers seem to think Mitch is going to let Trump turn the Senate into a televised opportunity for Trump to bulldoze the Brown Shirt Media. I don’t see ANY Senate Leader allowing that to happen. “Dignity of The Senate” and all that.

[Alberta's Child]

The GAO report contained no new factual information that wasn’t known months ago. If there was any merit to this report, the Democrats would have included a specific article of impeachment alleging a violation of the Impound Control Act. They didn’t — because it would have been laughable to claim that any aid was illegally withheld if every penny of it was paid out before the 2019 fiscal year ended on September 30th.

[goldstategop]

That’s why Democrats didn’t include it in their articles of impeachment. The aid ultimately wasn’t impounded.

There’s no there there and Democrats haven’t even accused the President of breaking any laws.

Then why is the Senate even taking it up? This isn’t something it wants to spend months on.

[dartuser]

All this bombshell new evidence is part of the Dem plan ... there will be other bombshells next week, during the trial, and certainly after the trial ... all of them will have been orchestrated by a transparently obvious Dem clown show that will rival the Balsey-Ford fiasco.

[Not A Snowbird]

Is it actual evidence, or more hearsay and opinion nonsense?

[nathanbedford]

The Republicans seem to want to have it both ways with new evidence. They don't want to consider new evidence of Trump's misconduct but want to let Trump call the Bidens as witnesses and have them give new evidence.

This reader's comment reveals a gross misunderstanding of how this matter should be litigated.

The question is new evidence of what? The writer says of Trump's "misconduct" but that is not an issue, the only justiciable issue is whether the president committed an impeachable offense. Firing the ambassador is hardly an impeachable offense, nor is it a high crime, crime or any kind or misdemeanor.

Therefore adducing evidence to show that the president fired the ambassador is simply not admissible. Nor is evidence showing that the president fired the ambassador for bad motive admissible. Nor is evidence showing the president fired the ambassador out of bad policy considerations admissible. None of this is admissible because none is relevant to an impeachable crime.

What misconduct are we talking about? A desire to illuminate corruption? A desire to fire an ambassador in a politically protected way? Hiring an attorney to investigate a political opponent? Again, none of this is relevant because none of it proves an impeachable offense.

Murphy said. "It is just an open and shut case that, to me, the president directed this scheme…"

Nor does it improve the deficiencies of the case to put a label on it that says "scheme" or "conspiracy." Scheme or conspiracy to do what?

On the other hand when the writer says that the Republicans want to have it both ways, he again betrays a misunderstanding of the process. If the president is accused of an action that is somehow criminal, he is certainly allowed to adduce evidence of good motive or constitutional cloak for his actions. As I have been saying since the very beginning, Congress may not criminalize a legitimate constitutional article II function of the executive. In this case the finding by OMB that the active delaying the delivery of money to Ukraine was unlawful. Equally, the president has a right to present evidence that he was plausibly investigating corruption.

This case of course should be dismissed on motion. Apparently Mitch McConnell has set his sights against accommodating that practice. That is an extremely risky path for a man whose wife is deep in financial ties with China during a time when China was hollowing out America. For this reason, I believe McConnell will find a way to bring the impeachment to a close without raising the whole specter of American politicians, or their relatives, selling their country out to foreign countries.