Should Senate impeachment trial allow witnesses?

[Thunk]

So, you think the impeachment words in the Constitution are just political bullshit not to be taken seriously?

Lefties obviously think that...holding secret hearings, a nameless "whistleblower", calling witnesses who did not witness a damn thing, not allowing the other side to call witnesses.

You are another one who doesn't just drink the Kool-Aid trump TV serves up to you, you spoon it right out of the container and shovel it directly into your mouth, bypassing the water.

Riiiiight...none of that actually happened...I just imagined it all.

 

[Lakhota]

“I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

Yeah...schiff and nadler should have listened to that part.

They did - but the above oath is specifically for Senate impeachment trials.

 

[Thunk]

They did - but the above oath is specifically for Senate impeachment trials.

But not the HOUSE impeachment trials???

 

[toobfreak]

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

Because morons, it isn't the job of the Senate to hold an all new hearing all over again and retry the president a second time, but to JUDGE the case presented them by the House!

Too bad Schiffty wouldn't allow the GOP to call Biden, Hunter and the others they wanted, then they could have gotten Mulvaney and others THEY wanted! Too late now!

 

[Polishprince]

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

The House is supposed to have a case already.

If they were calling witnesses that they already heard from, and know what they have to testify about, sure. But no one will know what, or if, any of these so-called witnesses will testify or even if they know anything about the phone call between the Presidents of America and Ukraine.

But in this situation, they want the Senate to investigate. That isn't going to happen. It just isn't their constitutional duty.

Its not their role.

The Senate's job is to sit in judgment, and its the House of Reps job to present their case.

And if the House doesn't meet the standard of proof and cannot show that the President committed high crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the Senate must acquit.

 

[Polishprince]

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

Because morons, it isn't the job of the Senate to hold an all new hearing all over again and retry the president a second time, but to JUDGE the case presented them by the House!

Too bad Schiffty wouldn't allow the GOP to call Biden, Hunter and the others they wanted, then they could have gotten Mulvaney and others THEY wanted! Too late now!

Calling the Bidens to testify would be proper. After all, if the Bidens are indeed corrupt, Trump had every right to ask Ukraine to investigate. Putting them on the witness stand where Hunter could be asked about his involvement in the cocaine and prostitution rackets would be enlightening.

 

[Lakhota]

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

Because morons, it isn't the job of the Senate to hold an all new hearing all over again and retry the president a second time, but to JUDGE the case presented them by the House!

Too bad Schiffty wouldn't allow the GOP to call Biden, Hunter and the others they wanted, then they could have gotten Mulvaney and others THEY wanted! Too late now!

Calling the Bidens to testify would be proper. After all, if the Bidens are indeed corrupt, Trump had every right to ask Ukraine to investigate. Putting them on the witness stand where Hunter could be asked about his involvement in the cocaine and prostitution rackets would be enlightening.

Funny. What do the Bidens have to do with Trump's impeachment trial? They would not be relevant witnesses.

 

[Polishprince]

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

Because morons, it isn't the job of the Senate to hold an all new hearing all over again and retry the president a second time, but to JUDGE the case presented them by the House!

Too bad Schiffty wouldn't allow the GOP to call Biden, Hunter and the others they wanted, then they could have gotten Mulvaney and others THEY wanted! Too late now!

Calling the Bidens to testify would be proper. After all, if the Bidens are indeed corrupt, Trump had every right to ask Ukraine to investigate. Putting them on the witness stand where Hunter could be asked about his involvement in the cocaine and prostitution rackets would be enlightening.

Funny. What do the Bidens have to do with Trump's impeachment trial? They would not be relevant witnesses.

The Bidens corruption is the NEED for Ukraine to investigate the crime family.

Puts a lie to the theory in Article 1 of the impeachment that the only reason why President Trump asked for an investigation was personal gain.

No, he asked for it, because of the Bidens total depravity which would be demonstrated during questioning.

 

[Lakhota]

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

Because morons, it isn't the job of the Senate to hold an all new hearing all over again and retry the president a second time, but to JUDGE the case presented them by the House!

Too bad Schiffty wouldn't allow the GOP to call Biden, Hunter and the others they wanted, then they could have gotten Mulvaney and others THEY wanted! Too late now!

Calling the Bidens to testify would be proper. After all, if the Bidens are indeed corrupt, Trump had every right to ask Ukraine to investigate. Putting them on the witness stand where Hunter could be asked about his involvement in the cocaine and prostitution rackets would be enlightening.

Funny. What do the Bidens have to do with Trump's impeachment trial? They would not be relevant witnesses.

The Bidens corruption is the NEED for Ukraine to investigate the crime family.

Puts a lie to the theory in Article 1 of the impeachment that the only reason why President Trump asked for an investigation was personal gain.

No, he asked for it, because of the Bidens total depravity which would be demonstrated during questioning.

Funny. Even if true - how would that help Trump? Trump's Biden conspiracy theories are no more credible than his Obama birtherism conspiracy theories.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Why does the prosecutor ask the Jury to find more evidence?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

No, he didn't he just didn't feed the trolls in the house. If you had a valid reason to impeach you might have more support.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

Because morons, it isn't the job of the Senate to hold an all new hearing all over again and retry the president a second time, but to JUDGE the case presented them by the House!

Too bad Schiffty wouldn't allow the GOP to call Biden, Hunter and the others they wanted, then they could have gotten Mulvaney and others THEY wanted! Too late now!

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

The house is free to call any of the 17 witnesses they used to make their determination. The house, in an impeachment, is the finder of facts, the senate is to try those facts. If the house can't make their case with what they have, tough shit, it's not the senates job to bail them out.

.

Not the way it works dumb ass.

It not up to the jury to find more evidence

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Because morons, it isn't the job of the Senate to hold an all new hearing all over again and retry the president a second time, but to JUDGE the case presented them by the House!

Too bad Schiffty wouldn't allow the GOP to call Biden, Hunter and the others they wanted, then they could have gotten Mulvaney and others THEY wanted! Too late now!

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.

True from the evidence produced from the house nothing more
And if the house had a case for impeachment the democrats wouldn't be asking the jury to find more evidence.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

Why does the prosecutor ask the Jury to find more evidence?

Nobody is asking the jury to find anything other than a verdict.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Why does the prosecutor ask the Jury to find more evidence?

Nobody is asking the jury to find anything other than a verdict.

But yet that is exactly what Schumer is asking for.
They don't even have to find a verdict where do you get these crazy notions from?
The evidence is produced the jury looks at the evidence and if it warrants a conviction they go with a conviction
Why do you think a jury found a felon innocent who had in his possession a stolen firearm?

 

[my2¢]

I don't wish to see impeachment but if a trial comes about and witnesses are not allowed then the proceedings in the Senate will take on a similar stench that was produced in the House.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't wish to see impeachment but if a trial comes about and witnesses are not allowed then the proceedings in the Senate will take on a similar stench that was produced in the House.

The HOUSE is wanting the Jury to do further investigations for them by calling new witnesses
It's not the job of the jury to investigate

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Pursuing the legal means to defend yourself is not "obstruction," turd.

 

[bripat9643]

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

The house is free to call any of the 17 witnesses they used to make their determination. The house, in an impeachment, is the finder of facts, the senate is to try those facts. If the house can't make their case with what they have, tough shit, it's not the senates job to bail them out.

.

A reasonable person would think that Trump would also want to call witnesses if he ever expects to be "vindicated".

Was Clinton "vindicated?" Obviously not. Leftwingers are great at proposing theories that are patently false.