Vietnam Vet

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court oversaw the entire trial. His job was to make sure everything was done proper. If not subpoenaing witnesses created a mistrial, he would have made a point of it. He would have insisted on the calling of witnesses.
If the Democrats want to claim there was no trial, they can petition the Supreme Court to declare a mistrial and begin all over with a new trial. They know that to be true so let's see if they go that route.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

The house is responsible for the trial. The Senate is the jury. Simple as that.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

There was a legal trial and Trump was acquitted. So be it.
But, witnesses would have provided t***hs and evidence that the Republicans were afraid to hear.
The t***h will out, slowly—-and to the detriment of the Republicans who wanted and v**ed, very deliberately, to see and hear no evil.

Huey Driver Loc: Texas

There is no trial when Democrats knew before the trial in the House started they would v**e him guilty

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

13 witnesses, 17 depositions, 28K+ documents etc.
Also managers over 68 times stated to the the case was overwhelming with iron clad evidence being given to
the senate.
So where is there no witnesses?
Democrats are just spewing the prearranged party line.

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Dems are having a real s**tty week, pretty much everything blowing up in their face.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

EyeSawYou

You are seriously mentally ill.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I deny it.

EyeSawYou

Most mentally I'll people deny it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

How many more witnesses and depositions are needed?
Why not call the original witness, the whistle blower seeing as they started the whole thing.
Usually in the USA the accuser has to testify and face the accused or their lawyer.I believe that is a basic Constitutional concept.
So refuse to allow that original witness to testify all others are irrelevant as with them it is only third hand rumors and not allowed in court.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

The Democrat house could have called all the witnesses they wanted, but they mistakenly thought they had a 'slam dunk'.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

That is wrong, although we don't know how Bolton would have testified nor do we know how damaging it would have been to the president the fact of the matter is that the House did not complete the process before sending the articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Had the Senate conceded to the house to finish the investigation that was the sole responsibility of the House it would have set precedent that would encourage the House to pull such pranks in the future, you do understand that the entire Senate was shut down during the impeachment proceedings, calling witnesses during the Senate hearing could have derailed congressional proceedings in all other matters for months on end, this was not the case in the House, the House had the ability to continue its work on other matters while the its investigation proceeded and if they wanted Bolton for a witness they should have subpoenaed him and then moved to court if he did not answer the subpoena, that is the normal course taken when the branches feud over the separation of powers.

Face it Kmgw9v, your side screwed the pooch.

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

I truly believe that this whole impeachment fiasco was never meant to actually remove the President. I think it had a few other intended strategies which were were well hidden. If the Dems had actually intended for the ultimate conviction and removal, they would have done a much better and thorough job of assembling their case. My wife tells me that the tell is "the more effort the prosecutor needs to put in to sell their argument to the jury, the weaker their case is." She also said that, in her view, the reason why most of the evidence was dismissed by the jury was because the majority of it was 2nd and 3rd hand, which isn't considered hard evidence in Federal jurisprudence.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

So so right thank you.....