Should Senate impeachment trial allow witnesses?

[berg80]

Since the impeachment seems to center around Ukraine (where there is NO evidence of wrongdoing by Trump)

Actually, there is overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt. Why would you say otherwise?

 

[berg80]

The Democrats - and snowflakes - who abused and violated the process

Actually, the Dems didn't abuse and violate the process. Why would you say otherwise? Does it have something to do with the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt?

 

[hadit]

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 investigation is the House's job and they should not attempt to have the Senate do their job for them. If they want these witnesses, it's their job to get them to testify. "Oh, but mean old orange man won't let them". That's what the courts are for.

The bottom line is, the House won't take the steps necessary to force testimony. That's not the Senate's problem.

 

[hadit]

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

Good question. Why hasn't the House taken the steps to force testimony?

 

[Kondor3]

I would love to see obama & hillary placed under oath!

But what it's looking like is there will be a motion to dismiss (for lack of evidence) in the first 30 seconds...if it gets 51 votes (which it will) it's over.

Done in 10 minutes.

And if they do, the Republicans are going to be in deep trouble in the 2020 general election... deep, profound trouble.

 

[hadit]

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.

So? That's not the Senate's problem to deal with. The House knew going in that Trump could run out the clock yet pushed on anyway. They could get a judge to fast track it if they were really more interested in justice than politics, but they're not, and now are trying to get the Senate to do what they would not.

 

[hadit]

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.

And the jury can't do their job until the case is presented to them. I doubt the judge presiding over the case will allow that to happen.

Sounds like the House should either crap or get off the pot. Do the heavy lifting to compel testimony or withdraw the case.

Here's the reality. Trump knows the democrats in the Senate don't want to be forced to stay in Washington 6 days a week through campaign season and they'll do what they have to to make this go away.

 

[hadit]

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".

Then you don't understand politics and the legal system. When the prosecution has a very weak case, sometimes it's best to not act like it's very important and let it fall apart on its own.

 

[hadit]

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.

Can you substantiate that?

 

[easyt65]

Actually, the Dems didn't abuse and violate the process.

Bwuhahahaha.....

The fact that they DID is not even in question anymore. The hard, reported, recorded FACTS are undeniable. No amount of spin can change that now.

 

[berg80]

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 investigation is the House's job and they should not attempt to have the Senate do their job for them. If they want these witnesses, it's their job to get them to testify. "Oh, but mean old orange man won't let them". That's what the courts are for.

The bottom line is, the House won't take the steps necessary to force testimony. That's not the Senate's problem.

What is your assessment of the Dem's argument they 1. have already produced ample evidence to impeach 2. could not afford to wait for the courts to rule on Trump's obstruction because of the imminent threat Trump poses in corrupting another election after soliciting the help of Russia in the 2016 election? 3. want Repubs in the Senate to pressure the WH to relent on it's obstruction in order for senators to have ALL the pertinent information they need to decide on impeachment.

 

[berg80]

Actually, the Dems didn't abuse and violate the process.

Bwuhahahaha.....

The fact that they DID is not even in question anymore. The hard, reported, recorded FACTS are undeniable. No amount of spin can change that now.

Go ahead and make your case.

 

[gipper]

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 investigation is the House's job and they should not attempt to have the Senate do their job for them. If they want these witnesses, it's their job to get them to testify. "Oh, but mean old orange man won't let them". That's what the courts are for.

The bottom line is, the House won't take the steps necessary to force testimony. That's not the Senate's problem.

What is your assessment of the Dem's argument they 1. have already produced ample evidence to impeach 2. could not afford to wait for the courts to rule on Trump's obstruction because of the imminent threat Trump poses in corrupting another election after soliciting the help of Russia in the 2016 election? 3. want Repubs in the Senate to pressure the WH to relent on it's obstruction in order for senators to have ALL the pertinent information they need to decide on impeachment.

That’s hilarious. You can’t be serious.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine being on a jury where the prosecution entire case is "Orange Man Bad!"?

 

[conserveguy877]

Where’s Hunter?

 

[berg80]

Can you imagine being on a jury where the prosecution entire case is "Orange Man Bad!"?

Gee, that's a lie. Not surprising coming from someone who thinks "orange man perfect."

 

[berg80]

Actually, the Dems didn't abuse and violate the process.

Bwuhahahaha.....

The fact that they DID is not even in question anymore. The hard, reported, recorded FACTS are undeniable. No amount of spin can change that now.

What's wrong? Can't make your case?

 

[Hellokitty]

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".

TRUMP knows he will have his vindication in 2020.

 

[McFury]

This impeachment bullshit has gone too long.
We all know that the Republicans in the Senate will vote NO, so vote asap and move on to more important shit like the economy and the trade war with china.
Bunch of incompetent retards running America like it's a banana republic.

 

[berg80]

This impeachment bullshit has gone too long.
We all know that the Republicans in the Senate will vote NO, so vote asap and move on to more important shit like the economy and the trade war with china.
Bunch of incompetent retards running America like it's a banana republic.

More important than holding the POTUS accountable when he breaks multiple laws? More important than holding him accountable for obstructing Congress' constitutional authority of oversight? He has violated his oath of office in nearly every way imaginable. There should be no consequence for that?