We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
NEED TO CATCH up? TheJournal.ie brings you a round-up of today’s news.
#MH17 Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 broke up in the air after being pierced by ‘high-energy objects’, a report found.
#FORMULA ONE Former Formula One champion Michael Schumacher has left a Swiss hospital to go home and continue rehab.
#CANADA A British explorer ship that was lost in 1846 has been found in Canada.
#MIDDLE EAST US Secretary of State John Kerry travelled to the Middle East to hold anti-Islamic State talks.
#SCOTLAND A new poll showed that there was just 1% separating the Yes and No sides in the Scottish referendum.
#AUSTRALIA A man was killed by a shark at Byron Bay in New South Wales.
Did you know that six portraits of Hitler in a range of disguises were created, just in case he fled Germany after altering his appearance? They weren’t made public until the 1990s. [History Extra]
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It’s like a dictatorship without due process and no justice
@Joe Johnson: why were these witnesses not called during the House proceedings?
The case has been made in the House and the Senate has the right to review the case as presented.
@milton friedman: eh “they; Trumps lot and he blocked them there as well , make no mistake a dictator in the making
@milton friedman: Because Trump BLOCKED them.
You know this.
Stop being disingenuous!
@Joe Johnson: ha what are you on about, the republicans were not allowed to call joe/hunter Biden as witnesses,,swings both ways
@milton friedman: They were called… but they either refused to stand witness or were blocked by the White House from doing so. Documentation requests were also refused by the White House.
@RAYZ88: How would either of the Bidens be witness to the phone calls and actions by Trump and his administration? This is an investigation in to abuse of power and obstruction of congress by Trump. It’s not an investigation in to the Bidens.
@RAYZ88: And did Joe/Hunter Biden have evidence relating to Donald Trump using the power of the office to force a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election? OR ARE YOU DEFLECTING?
@PeterC: Are you reading my mind!!!?
@Declan Crowley: ah so these are the White House staff the wish to call as witnesses. Ok fair enough Trump did block them.
@Tricia G: you’ll find that the republicans tried to call witnesses in the first hearings and were blocked by Shiff. Now the democrats are calling new witnesses(which weren’t called in the first one) and now the republicans are blocking them.
It’s all a game of one up man ship. Both sides know the end result it’s who can cause the other side more damage. If I was American I’d be looking for both houses(and Trump) to be fired and new people in.
@Cormac Flanagan: You are LYING. They were called. They refused.
There were many subpoenas issued by the House that were NOT honoured.
Both for documents AND witnesses.
And the witnesses the Republicans wanted to call the Bidens.
What the Republicans want you to believe it those that are refusing to testify under oath are telling the truth and those that testified under oath are lying.
If they’re telling the truth why won’t they testify under oath?
You are attempting to deflect from the Republican’s blatant cover-up by suggesting the Dems are at fault.
That’s nonsense.
@Tricia G: they actively blocked the whistleblower(the person who started all this) from testifying. Now they may have there reason but to block the person making the allegation makes a joke of the process.
They tried to get him with the Russiagate and it failed. This is just another(poor) attempt to get him. Which is worse. Trump has admitted in speeches to far worse and they haven’t gone after him(yet).
What will happen is they’ll lose in the senate. They’ll wait till November. If Trump gets in and they get a majority in both houses they’ll try again. As I said it’s all a game.
@Tricia G: you cant reason with some. Nor do these same people bother with facts, only what they want to believe or twist. Sort of like brexiteers.
@RAYZ88: They are impeachment hearings of Donald Trump! What does Hunter Biden know about Donald Trumps conspiracy to withhold congressional and senate approved aid to Ukraine? Nothing because he isn’t involved thus can’t be a witness as he has nothing to testify to.
@Cormac Flanagan: Glad you brought up the whistleblower. Democrats argued, rightly in my opinion, that the whistleblower had a statutory right to anonymity. Notwithstanding that the whistleblower merely exposed the breach which was then clarified by a number of those actually involved (what would the whistleblower add?), you only have to look at the damage and false attacks done to Maurice McCabe for rightly lifting the lid on the corruption within our own Garda Siochana. If whistleblowers didn’t have the right to anonymity, how do you adequately protect them?
@Tricia G: Great minds!
@Cormac Flanagan: because there are laws protecting whistleblowers and the whistle blower followed the correct channels given trumps vindictiveness to anyone who speaks out. The substance of the complaints have been confirmed anyway by the state department witness that were called during the hearings.
@PeterC: and I agree he should have been protected. But a quick google search will get you the name of the whistleblower, rightly or wrongly he will now have to give evidence.
@Cormac Flanagan: After the release of the phone transcript there was no requirement to interview the whistleblower.
Using the argument of the GOP that individual overheard the phone call, but the White House actually released the transcript which is primary source info.
@Jonathan Morgan: well if that’s the argument then most of the witnesses were irrelevant because most just gave evidence of the phone call, who was there etc. If he had so little evidence to give and he’s name was out why not allow him be called. Then we don’t have the situation there in now with the republican acting like babies saying well you blocked out requests so we’re blocking yours.
The Dems are doing the right thing, for the wrong reasons and wrong way. All this is about the primaries in November. There all getting their sound bites in. And for those in the red/blue states they have to follow party lines or not get back in
@Joe Johnson:
Trump and his legal reps were denied due process in the House, don’t you recall? if it’s good enough for the Dems then it’s good enough for the Republicans
@Cormac Flanagan: Right then, if that’s your logic, the whistleblower is also just another to give evidence of a phone call he heard but was not actually party to. Which brings us back to original argument – Why not let those who were actually on the call or played a specific part in the contents of the call, testify during the impeachment?
@Raven: “Denied due process”? That’s a fairly blanket statement. Care to elaborate?
@Paul Furey: you can’t reason with TDS victims.
@PeterC: I’m saying by blocking the whistleblower from giving evidence even tho as you said his evidence is not that important it gives the Reps the opportunity(which there taking) to block other witnesses.
Also why bring in new witnesses now. If there evidence is so important why weren’t they called in the first hearing. And if there evidence is not important(like the whistleblower) why call them.
@PeterC:
Didn’t the Dems interview their “witnesses” in the basement of capitol hill, Trump and his lawyers were denied access to cross examine the very same witnesses. Clear enough?
@Raven: that wasn’t what happened – and that wasn’t the ‘trial’ – try to keep up
@milton friedman: they were called, they just refused to come
@Dave Hammond:
I’m sure Trumps legal team have a better grasp of what happened than you with your third hand, hear say, he said, she said , CNN fairytales.
And where did I mention trial? – try keep up. :)
This is a joke
This was always going to happen. Everybody knew this. The democrats are wasting time and money.
@Marcia Craine: Attempting to show that a President isn’t above the law by circumventing Congress and obstructing justice? It would be a constitutional failure if they didn’t impeach him. Not allowing key witnesses by the Republicans is a two fingers to the US people, constitution and rule of law.
@Marcia Craine: BS! They’re doing their jobs!
This is such a rubbish argument. Don’t do your job because the people you’re depending on to do theirs are refusing.
Democratic voters are also watching. The polls make it clear that the population want to see witnesses. They’re pretty damning!
@Tom Cullen: correct. Abuse of power is an impeachable offence and the list of impeachable offences still grows.
An absolute farce, the Senate should hold their heads in shame, a dictator in the making, and they are letting it happen, all because they want to get voted back in and keep their jobs , utterly biased, and guaranteed he will be found not guilty , even tho the dogs in the street know he is guilty…
@Declan Crowley: “dictator in the making”… “want to get voted back in” Consistent stuff.
Title should read; Democrats Hoax Impeachment Proceedings Get Underway.
@BOH®: No, it should not.
@Tricia G: oh wait, I’m wrong. Just like the Russian Collusion, and the Stormy Daniels thing, and all the other lies. So, the most harassed man on the planet should get impeached over a phone call he made to another guy, even when that other guy says nothing wrong happened. The harassed man even releases the transcript to show he’s nothing to hide. God, it all makes perfect sense now. Impeach Trump. WOOOOOOO!!
It would be too exonerating
There isn’t a snowball in hell’s chance that “Impartial Justice” will be served in the US Senate during this trial!
The eye balls of politicians are not connected to their brains!
have your say