Best argument for the Senate to vote against brand new witnesses...

thats bullshit. The republicans still control the senate so they control which witnesses get voted in. They could vote to allow just one witness. That would not take months. Weak argument man


Wrong......one witness could tie up the Senate for weeks.....and again....it is the House that is supposed to investigate and gather witnesses...not the Senate.
How could a witness tie up the senate for weeks?


They can fight the subpoena.......they can depose them for weeks.......it isn't the Senates job to find witnesses..
Depose them for weeks? What are you talking about?

If they fight the subpoena there is a Supreme Court justice presiding over the senate trial who can make a quick ruling.


Nope......they can take it to the federal courts.......demand a full hearing.....one judge doesn't get to make rulings on executive privilidge....just arguing that would take weeks...
you should stick to arguing gun rights as law does not seem to be your strong suit. Unlike in the house the senate determines the allowance of witnesses and issues surrounding privilege claims or challenges to subpoenas. It is a majority vote situation.


Here read this....
Testimony and Executive Privilege in the Senate Impeachment Trial
An initial question here, however, is whether the witnesses other than Bolton would even appear. The White House, supported by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), relied on various constitutional arguments to direct all four of the relevant witnesses not to appear in the House. Bolton has now indicated he will nonetheless comply with a Senate subpoena. And Duffey would almost certainly have to appear. In the House inquiry, he refused to comply with a subpoena for a deposition solely because agency counsel would not be allowed to attend, and the House did not subpoena him to appear for public testimony at which he could have been accompanied by agency counsel. Assuming the Senate subpoenaed him for public testimony or, if it conducted a deposition, allowed government counsel to attend, Duffey would no longer have any basis for refusing to appear.

But the White House could again direct Mulvaney and Blair not to appear at all on the basis of testimonial immunity. Unlike the litigation that would likely have been required to force their testimony in the House inquiry, however, the Senate itself could vote on the validity of that immunity claim. As congressional experts have explained, Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the trial, would probably not be the one to decide their immunity or any privilege claim; ultimately, 51 senators are likely necessary to require the testimony. (The question of what happens in the event of a tie is more complicated, but in general, a 50-50 tie means a motion fails—though Roberts could potentially vote to break a tie in some circumstances.) As NPR’s Nina Totenberg put it, “under Senate rules, it is the senators themselves who have the first and last word.”

Accordingly, unlike the procedures that would have applied in the House, in the Senate the judge of the claim would be the full chamber. And a vote overruling any immunity or privilege claim would, by necessity, be a bipartisan one. Democrats would need three Republican senators to force a tie and four for a 51-vote majority. In the House, the Democratic chairman alone ruled on whether to recognize the claimed privilege or immunity. If Mulvaney and Blair were both confronted with a bipartisan Senate ruling that they must appear in the impeachment inquiry, they may be less willing to refuse to comply than they were in the House. That would be particularly true if the same Senate majority subsequently scheduled a vote to hold Mulvaney and Blair in contempt for their refusal to appear. In addition, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit were to issue a decision rejecting McGahn’s immunity claim, on which it recently heard oral arguments, that opinion could provide further impetus for Mulvaney and Blair to abide by the Senate subpoena rather than the White House’s direction.
 
thats bullshit. The republicans still control the senate so they control which witnesses get voted in. They could vote to allow just one witness. That would not take months. Weak argument man

If you think that is bullshit, maybe you need to flashback to the OJ murder trial.

"In Contempt" by Christopher Darden. He was co-prosecutor, excellent read.
This isn’t a murder trial it is an impeachment trial. Very different
 
If you think that is bullshit, maybe you need to flashback to the OJ murder trial.

"In Contempt" by Christopher Darden. He was co-prosecutor, excellent read.
This isn’t a murder trial it is an impeachment trial. Very different[/QUOTE]

Trial is a trial, samo samo. Same procedures. Have you read it? Awesome book
 
Trump's excellent attorney's made this point......if the Senate votes to allow new witnesses......it will extend the proceedings for months...tying up the Senate during that time.

If this becomes the new standard....where the House can ship over impeachment without needing to call witnesses in the House....they will do this as a precedent......doing a quick impeachment, and then forcing the Senate to stop everything they do, to deal with witnesses the House should have called during the impeachment......

This, all by itself, is a reason above politics to not call new witnesses........
thats bullshit. The republicans still control the senate so they control which witnesses get voted in. They could vote to allow just one witness. That would not take months. Weak argument man


Wrong......one witness could tie up the Senate for weeks.....and again....it is the House that is supposed to investigate and gather witnesses...not the Senate.
How could a witness tie up the senate for weeks?

Trump asserts executive privilege. It goes to court. The Court.
they are in court, it’s a trial. There’s a Supreme Court justice presiding over it. How is this going to take weeks?

Can one justice make ruling on separation of powers, i.e. executive privilege?
 
thats bullshit. The republicans still control the senate so they control which witnesses get voted in. They could vote to allow just one witness. That would not take months. Weak argument man
That's not bullshit.

What makes you think the Senate can call witnesses faster than the House?

Its ass-backward to start the trial before you have the evidence of wrongdoing.
 
I do not believe the Senate should allow itself to be tied up for however long with new witnesses and documents that should have been included in the House Articles. IMHO, that's all they should consider, whatever the House inquiry uncovered or provided. Nothing else, the House impeached President Trump on that information alone and that is what the Senate should limit their trial on. There's nothing that says the House can't impeach Trump a 2nd time should they find new information or witnesses.

Frankly, this is a bullshit case that never would've seen the light of day in an ordinary court room. IMHO it should be flushed on Friday.

I guess the fact that the witnesses weren't allowed and the documents were not turned over really doesn't matter does it.
 
Cool...then we should pass a constitutional amendment to either remove the impeachment process entirely, thus clearing the path for future presidents to do whatever they want.....

(In case you didn't know, Trump will not be president forever...)

Or...pass an amendment that says impeachments can only last as long as whoever the person who is most butthurt about it tells you it can last....a day, 30 minutes...who cares....

Funny how all of this bitching about anti-impeachment comes about when a republican is the one getting impeached
Pay attention.

The argument isnt against the ability to impeach.

The argument is against using impeachment in order to keep voters from meddling in our elections.
 
Trial is a trial, samo samo. Same procedures. Have you read it? Awesome book
If you’re gonna delete sections of the thread then learn how the tags work... and no the trials are not the same. Sorry, I posted a link above explaining many differences
 
thats bullshit. The republicans still control the senate so they control which witnesses get voted in. They could vote to allow just one witness. That would not take months. Weak argument man


Wrong......one witness could tie up the Senate for weeks.....and again....it is the House that is supposed to investigate and gather witnesses...not the Senate.
How could a witness tie up the senate for weeks?

Trump asserts executive privilege. It goes to court. The Court.
they are in court, it’s a trial. There’s a Supreme Court justice presiding over it. How is this going to take weeks?

Can one justice make ruling on separation of powers, i.e. executive privilege?
Senate procedure calls for a majority vote so the senate would decide. The Dems have made a few motions for the Chief Justice to decide some items but I don’t think McConnell is going to give up control
 
thats bullshit. The republicans still control the senate so they control which witnesses get voted in. They could vote to allow just one witness. That would not take months. Weak argument man
That's not bullshit.

What makes you think the Senate can call witnesses faster than the House?

Its ass-backward to start the trial before you have the evidence of wrongdoing.
They have their evidence and have presented it. Witnesses and docs that Trump blocked are to support the case they presented.
 
Depose them for weeks? What are you talking about?

If they fight the subpoena there is a Supreme Court justice presiding over the senate trial who can make a quick ruling.
Robert's doesn't make Constitutional rulings on his own.
we aren’t talking about constitutional rulings. We are taking about an impeachment trial. Read the link I posted. You sound confused
 
They have their evidence and have presented it. Witnesses and docs that Trump blocked are to support the case they presented.
Then House Democrats should not have refused to subpoena them
They did subpoena... them they got sued, then they withdrew and took it to the senate. This isn’t complicated and it is a very weak talking point that makes y’all sound like you couldn’t care less about the truth.
 
we aren’t talking about constitutional rulings. We are taking about an impeachment trial. Read the link I posted. You sound confused
Yes, we are. I'll explain how it is that you're the one confused.

1. Executive Privilege is a Constitutional right of POTUS.

2. Congressional Subpoenas are a Constitutional right of the House and Senate.

3. The Judicial Branch (Not just the Chief Justice) rules on conflicts when those 2 rights above are conflicting.

Do you understand now?
 
They did subpoena... them they got sued, then they withdrew and took it to the senate. This isn’t complicated and it is a very weak talking point that makes y’all sound like you couldn’t care less about the truth.
Democrats withdrew their subpoenas, not me, so its Democrats that don't care about the truth.

Lets get this right.

You're actually saying the Senate Republicans should issue the same subpoenas that House Democrats withdrew?

Dont you realise how ridiculous that is?
 
They did subpoena... them they got sued, then they withdrew and took it to the senate. This isn’t complicated and it is a very weak talking point that makes y’all sound like you couldn’t care less about the truth.
Democrats withdrew their subpoenas, not me, so its Democrats that don't care about the truth.

Lets get this right.

You're actually saying the Senate Republicans should issue the same subpoenas that House Democrats withdrew?

Dont you realise how ridiculous that is?
Schiff literally explained the withdrawal... what was the lie?

and if the senate really cared about the truth then yes they should hear from first hand witnesses. They took an oath to be impartial. The ridiculousness comes from the blatant partisanship
 

Forum List

Back
Top