Should Senate impeachment trial allow witnesses?

[Hutch Starskey]

The rules of the impeachment inquiry stated that the standard for witnesses was that they must be relevant to the proceedings. Not "witnesses they wanted to call".

Why do you believe anyone gives a shit about Adolph Schiffler's arbitrary, spur of the moment rules?

They aren't "Schiff's arbitrary rules". They are the rules set forth in the impeachment resolution thay was passed by the House, dope.

Huh? The resolution that passed yesterday determined the rules that Adolph Schiffler operated under?

You're such an idiot.
No, dope. The resolution regarding the impeachment inquiry. Obviously.

House Passes Resolution Formalizing Impeachment Inquiry

Then they are the Dim's arbitrary rules.

In her press conference ahead of the vote, Pelosi pushed back on Republican claims that the process is a "sham" and unfair to the president. The procedures in the resolution are "very transparent and open," she said, "giving more privileges to the president and his argument than were given in the past."

Republican leadership after the vote slammed what they called a "Soviet-style process." House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy asserted, "There's nothing the president did to be impeached."

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., noted that not only did all Republicans voted against the resolution, but so did two Democrats. "The House deserves better, the people of this country deserve better. We should be tackling real problems," he said, arguing that Pelosi is "infatuated" with impeachment.​

The procedures in the resolution are "very transparent and open," she said, "giving more privileges to the president and his argument than were given in the past."

You should read them for yourself. It may clear up some of that misinformation you so blindly accept.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Impeachment Democrat style...

1) Announce you are going to find a way to impeach an elected President, literally before he even takes the office.
2) Over the first year in office, say the word "impeachment" at least once a week, get people use to it...and think that it is just a tool to fix what you don't like.
3) Spend $40,000,000 and 2 years investigating nearly every person who has ever had a relationship with the President in the past 2-3 years. Surely to FUCK you will find something good to start the overdue impeachment.
4) FOR FUCKS SAKE!!! WHAT DO YOU MEAN NO EVIDENCE.... OH MY GOD!!!
5) After calming down, continue to say impeachment and wait...oh God please...wait for something, anything else!
6) YES!!!!!!!!... Phone call!!! quid pro quo!!!.... witness!!...er..wait... WHISTLE BLOWER!!!... er wait... nevermind him.... BRIBERY!!!
7) VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT!!!?....YES!!!... Finally...
8) Wait...not much here...uh...let's delay this until maybe we can find something else.... uh...

 

[xyz]

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

Trump’s fight against subpoenas reaches Supreme Court

Totally separate case. Has nothing to do with impeachment.

And the only reason there’s a case here at all is because Trump doesn’t have the power to order his accounting firm to refuse a Congressional subpoena.

It has nothing to do with impeachment because the stupid Democrats chose to impeach on only one thing, when there were tons of potential crimes.

 

[BULLDOG]

How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?

That was the job of the house to do...the senate acts as the jury.

Trump obstructed the House impeachment process by not allowing key witnesses to testify - forcing the House into the courts that would drag out into the 2020 election season.

The person you are replying to doesn't know what they're talking about or they're lying.

The Senate is where the trial happens. Which is why the senators are the jury. The Senate isn't the jury. The senators are. The only reason to have a jury is for a trial.

A trial is where witnesses testify to the jury. The place to have witnesses is a trial.

The House tried to get those people to testify but trump ordered them not too. Which is also a crime. A subpoena is a legal document that requires people to show up and testify. Republicans don't give a damn about our process or the rule of law so we weren't able to get the testimony of all witnesses.

I find it disgusting to see a president obstruct this process with not allowing people to testify they whine and cry that the president didn't get a chance to defend himself or have due process. The president was invited twice by the House to come testify and defend himself. He said no. Then whines he didn't get a chance to defend himself.

These people are making a joke of our nation, our government and our rule of law.

It is too bad you don't have a fucking clue as to what you are prattling on about!

The Moon bat doesn't even realize the President doesn't need to prove he's innocent. Innocence is presumed in any court in this country. The Prosecution (Democrats) are required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Senate is the Arbiter of the House Articles sent to them. The Senate looks at the evidence and decides guilt or innocence. Public School is failing us.

The senate has already said they have no intention of fairly evaluating the evidence. The jury is directly coordinating with the White House. No need to continue down a path with a corrupt Senate court.

 

[hadit]

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

Neither has the House, so it's a moot point.

 

[colfax_m]

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

Neither has the House, so it's a moot point.

The House is impeaching him over it so I’d say they’re doing something.

 

[hadit]

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

Neither has the House, so it's a moot point.

The House is impeaching him over it so I’d say they’re doing something.

But the Senate democrats are insisting that they be allowed to call witnesses the House did not, so I'd say they didn't finish the job.

 

[colfax_m]

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

Neither has the House, so it's a moot point.

The House is impeaching him over it so I’d say they’re doing something.

But the Senate democrats are insisting that they be allowed to call witnesses the House did not, so I'd say they didn't finish the job.

Senate Democrats have every right to request witnesses. The reasons Senate Republicans have been giving to deny the request are absurd.

 

[theHawk]

How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?

That was the job of the house to do...the senate acts as the jury.

Trump obstructed the House impeachment process by not allowing key witnesses to testify - forcing the House into the courts that would drag out into the 2020 election season.

How does a President “not allow” someone to testify? Were the people tied up? They all had the ability to if they wanted, they chose not to be a part of the sham. Congress does not have a right to subpoena people, especially from the executive branch.

 

[jc456]

79% of Democrats say YES.

72% of Independents say YES.

64% of Republicans say YES.

A poll released Tuesday by ABC News and The Washington Post found that about 7 in 10 Americans think the administration officials should be able to testify. In an example of bipartisan agreement, 79% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 72% of independents agree that Trump should allow them to appear in a Senate trial in the likely event that the House votes to impeach him.

Impeachment: Poll finds most think Trump should let aides testify in Senate

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is requesting four witnesses: acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey.

Chuck Schumer requests four witnesses in impeachment Senate trial - CNN

Chuck Schumer is only requesting four witnesses. I think this is a fair and reasonable request - especially since most Americans, most Republicans, and most Independents want witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial. What do you think?

isn't that the job of the House? Didn't they bring in witnesses to testify? If they didn't bring in enough witnesses, then they shouldn't vote. Right?

The House only had "voluntary" witnesses. Trump blocked all the "key" witnesses and documents. It's called Obstruction of Congress.

no it isn't, the congress has no legal subpoena, how can one obstruct something that isn't legal? needs to go to a court. Ever hear of executive privilege? you should actually educate yourself, you look more foolish than normal.

Really? You are the second right winger claiming Congress does not have subpoena power....today...

WHO on the right wing TOLD you that?

Are you actually trying to claim when Congress subpoenaed Hillary Clinton's Benghazi and Lybia emails,

it was never a legal subpoena?

And when they subpoenaed the IRS and Lois Lerner for records, it was never a legal subpoena? And when they subpoenaed her to testify, that was not legal either?

or when the R's in congress subpoenaed Eric Holder on fast n furious...

ALL OF THAT was done with ILLEGAL subpoenas?

WHO is telling you this crapola?

that isn't what I said, I said it wasn't legal. meaning no one needs to honor them. prove me wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you believe anyone gives a shit about Adolph Schiffler's arbitrary, spur of the moment rules?

They aren't "Schiff's arbitrary rules". They are the rules set forth in the impeachment resolution thay was passed by the House, dope.

Huh? The resolution that passed yesterday determined the rules that Adolph Schiffler operated under?

You're such an idiot.
No, dope. The resolution regarding the impeachment inquiry. Obviously.

House Passes Resolution Formalizing Impeachment Inquiry

Then they are the Dim's arbitrary rules.

In her press conference ahead of the vote, Pelosi pushed back on Republican claims that the process is a "sham" and unfair to the president. The procedures in the resolution are "very transparent and open," she said, "giving more privileges to the president and his argument than were given in the past."

Republican leadership after the vote slammed what they called a "Soviet-style process." House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy asserted, "There's nothing the president did to be impeached."

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., noted that not only did all Republicans voted against the resolution, but so did two Democrats. "The House deserves better, the people of this country deserve better. We should be tackling real problems," he said, arguing that Pelosi is "infatuated" with impeachment.​

The procedures in the resolution are "very transparent and open," she said, "giving more privileges to the president and his argument than were given in the past."

You should read them for yourself. It may clear up some of that misinformation you so blindly accept.

That's the lie of the century, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

Neither has the House, so it's a moot point.

The House is impeaching him over it so I’d say they’re doing something.

But the Senate democrats are insisting that they be allowed to call witnesses the House did not, so I'd say they didn't finish the job.

Senate Democrats have every right to request witnesses. The reasons Senate Republicans have been giving to deny the request are absurd.

They can request them, and the Republicans can deny their request.

The reasons for asking for the witness are absurd and astoundingly hypocritical.

 

[LeftofLeft]

79% of Democrats say YES.

72% of Independents say YES.

64% of Republicans say YES.

A poll released Tuesday by ABC News and The Washington Post found that about 7 in 10 Americans think the administration officials should be able to testify. In an example of bipartisan agreement, 79% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 72% of independents agree that Trump should allow them to appear in a Senate trial in the likely event that the House votes to impeach him.

Impeachment: Poll finds most think Trump should let aides testify in Senate

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is requesting four witnesses: acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey.

Chuck Schumer requests four witnesses in impeachment Senate trial - CNN

Chuck Schumer is only requesting four witnesses. I think this is a fair and reasonable request - especially since most Americans, most Republicans, and most Independents want witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial. What do you think?

I think the Senate should do whatever they please just like the House did.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why do you lie?

I was using the term witness as a literal one. They called for the whistleblower, whom just a few months ago was decried by Republicans as not a witness to any behavior (hearsay, remember?). They also called Hunter Biden who as far as I know has not witnessed anything in the White House since 2016 and has never been to Ukraine.

They can call any “witness” they want but unless they’re actually witnesses, I don’t consider their request legitimate.

Who the fuck cares what you consider legitimate? The whistle blower can be called to identify the person they received the information about the cal from. That person is not afforded any protection under the law.

Great. Then let the Senate call him if they’re so obsessed with it. Why haven’t they?

The trial has not started, dumbass!

I doubt it ever will.

The Senate has these nice things called committees and the committees have subpoena powers.

They could call him before their committee anytime.

Dumbass.

Wrong answer shit for brains! They cannot call the whistle blower to testify in an impeachment trial if it has not started yet. Why are you so fucking stupid?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Holding a trial is exactly the job of the senate. The house had hearings to determine whether to impeach Trump. Now there will be a trial to determine whether he is guilty.

There will be no trial. A motion to dismiss is what will happen and the case will be over in a matter of minutes.

And won't that be a howl.

Months, YEARS of work by the democrats, thrown out in seconds like a bad burrito breakfast.

What makes you think it will be turned over to the Senate any time soon?

If Nasty Pelousy does not turn the Articles over soon, the Senate can just ignore them. Nasty would be violating the Constitution. She does not have the power to try impeachments or prevent the Senate from doing so.

Wouldn't Nancy's refusal to turn over the impeachment case to the Senate now that it is completed or hold onto it long enough in an effort to interfere with senators running for election constitute OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS? Seems you can be impeached for that. Something for Mitch to consider.

You cannot impeach the Speaker of the House. Read your Constitution please!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

The House issue the subpoena, dumbass! They needed to go to court but chose not to do so. The White House is under no obligation to go to court to deny the House' subpoena.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

Neither has the House, so it's a moot point.

The House is impeaching him over it so I’d say they’re doing something.

That's because they are fucking retarded.

 

[toobfreak]

There will be no trial. A motion to dismiss is what will happen and the case will be over in a matter of minutes.

And won't that be a howl.

Months, YEARS of work by the democrats, thrown out in seconds like a bad burrito breakfast.

What makes you think it will be turned over to the Senate any time soon?

If Nasty Pelousy does not turn the Articles over soon, the Senate can just ignore them. Nasty would be violating the Constitution. She does not have the power to try impeachments or prevent the Senate from doing so.

Wouldn't Nancy's refusal to turn over the impeachment case to the Senate now that it is completed or hold onto it long enough in an effort to interfere with senators running for election constitute OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS? Seems you can be impeached for that. Something for Mitch to consider.

You cannot impeach the Speaker of the House. Read your Constitution please!

You get the idea. I'm sure there must be some mechanism to deal with sufficient abuse of power by a Speaker to warrant removal from her position.
Always amuses me how lawmakers have a strict crime and punishment for everything under the sun except for their OWN malfeasance.

 

[toobfreak]

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

The House issue the subpoena, dumbass! They needed to go to court but chose not to do so. The White House is under no obligation to go to court to deny the House' subpoena.

On those grounds alone, we have two articles of impeachment:

1. Based purely on an unproven assumption of INTENT based on circumstance whose witnesses which would have cleared the matter they DENIED.
2. Because Trump pursued his legal right to ignore a subpoena which the House refused to allow the courts time to resolve.

The Democrat's entire case against Trump amounts to a cop finding you walking down a street and arresting you because farther down was a broken into store and they just assumed you were heading there to rob it, then before ordering you to surrender for arrest, the cop just shoots you in the back because the police were unwilling to wait to find out if you would give up peacefully!

The democrats are trying to reduce us to a banana republic under the guise of "defending our law."

 

[MAGAman]

How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?

It's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.

They couldn't.

There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.