Democrats Demand Trump Testify At Senate Impeachment Trial

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The whole concept of impeaching a president who is no longer in office is ridiculous.

Why? So a president can do anything he likes, in the last few months of office, knowing a trial would be delayed until after he is out of office? No.

 

[meaner gene]

The whole concept of impeaching a president who is no longer in office is ridiculous.

Wrong. The framers did not intend a president or any other civil officer to escape an impeachment trial by running out the clock.

And on more than one occasion the senate held trial on people who were private citizens at the time the trial began.

 

[Bush92]

Not this time. Roberts never even showed up for preliminaries of the impeachment because it is unconstitutional despotism to try to silence a politicsl rival. Just like the Democrats and 10 soon to lose in Primaries RINO's did in the House to a Congresswoman elected by the PEOPLE of her district.

Roberts only has to show up for the trial of a sitting president. The reason is that the judge at an impeachment trial can't be a beneficiary of the action. Since Kamala Harris has no skin in the game in a Trump trial. There is no reason to substitute the judge.

Harris certainly has skin in the game as leftist extremist politician and wanting to stop a future political rival. Takes 60 votes that Democrats don't have anyway. Total waste of time.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Right. One can only be compelled to testify unless one is granted immunity.

No, you are wrong (or you completely misunderstood my point.)

In short, they can take away 5th Amendment protection if they grant you immunity from prosecution. It is frequently used. If you then refuse to answer after being granted immunity, they can lock you up.

So, do you still think I am wrong?

Thanks.

You claimed without immunity, a person couldn't be compelled to testify at all. That's not true. They can force you to show up. They can force you to take the oath.

Sorry, but "compelled to testify" has a specific legal meaning to me that is different than it is to you and Fort Fun. I think Fort Fun realizes that we were mainly just miscommunicating.

I did leave a lot of details and caveats out (for example "testify where one might incriminate oneself"), of course, so my bad.

I sat in a bunch of federal grand jury trials this year. Each subpoenaed witness was instructed that they could take the 5th, or leave the courtroom and discuss things with their attorney at any time.

I don't consider showing up for trial equivalent of testifying. That's when one gives testimony.

 

[meaner gene]

Why? So a president can do anything he likes, in the last few months of office, knowing a trial would be delayed until after he is out of office? No.

A president could be put on trial months before the end of his term, and he could delay the trial by subpoenaing witnesses for his defense who are far out of reach, and thus delay the trial until they could appear. There are many ways someone can delay, a trial, and in every case the trial continues to it's conclusion.

 

[Bush92]

The whole concept of impeaching a president who is no longer in office is ridiculous.

Why? So a president can do anything he likes, in the last few months of office, knowing a trial would be delayed until after he is out of office? No.

Trial to remove someone from office...who is no longer in office. Total political shit show.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Harris certainly has skin in the game as leftist extremist politician and wanting to stop a future political rival.

No, that's stupid and wrong. Else there would be nobody qualified to participate a senate trial, as everyone in congress is a politician. Just another stupid, contrived-on-the-spot idea by a cultist trying to preempt accountability for his cult leader.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

to remove someone from office.

You can stop right there, as this is not the only function of impeachment. So you are wrong.

 

[meaner gene]

Roberts only has to show up for the trial of a sitting president. The reason is that the judge at an impeachment trial can't be a beneficiary of the action. Since Kamala Harris has no skin in the game in a Trump trial. There is no reason to substitute the judge.

Harris certainly has skin in the game as leftist extremist politician and wanting to stop a future political rival. Takes 60 votes that Democrats don't have anyway. Total waste of time.

That's 67 votes, assuming fill attendance by the senate. If senators by choice or chance do not attend the verdict vote, that number could be diminished to as few as 34 votes.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Right. One can only be compelled to testify unless one is granted immunity.

Not true at all. Now, the "testimony" may then consist of the witness taking the 5th on every question, but yes... A person absolutely can be compelled by Congress to swear in and testify, under threat of contempt.

Taking the 5th is equivalent to refusal to testify...

taking the Fifth

Definition of taking the Fifth in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals are so cute when they stamp their little feef and their Jesus shoes fall off.

 

[Bush92]

Roberts only has to show up for the trial of a sitting president. The reason is that the judge at an impeachment trial can't be a beneficiary of the action. Since Kamala Harris has no skin in the game in a Trump trial. There is no reason to substitute the judge.

Harris certainly has skin in the game as leftist extremist politician and wanting to stop a future political rival. Takes 60 votes that Democrats don't have anyway. Total waste of time.

That's 67 votes, assuming fill attendance by the senate. If senators by choice or chance do not attend the verdict vote, that number could be diminished to as few as 34 votes.

Dream on.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now you are simply making things up.

Taking the 5th is equivalent to refusal to testify...

Yet you still must show up and swear in to testify, to comply with the subpoena, which is all i am saying. So you arent arguing against anything i have said. And you can't take the 5th on just any question to avoid answering it. That is at the judge's discretion. For example, if you are subpoenaed to testify and refuse to open your mouth or try to plead the 5th when asked your name, the judge can hold you in contempt.

 

[Bush92]

to remove someone from office.

You can stop right there, as this is not the only function of impeachment. So you are wrong.

Trump will be back in politics again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump will be back in politics again.

He may very well be back to poison the GOP again, either by running as a republican or as an independent, peeling off their fringe nutball votes.

 

[Bush92]

Now you are simply making things up.

Taking the 5th is equivalent to refusal to testify...

Yet you still must show up and swear in to testify, to comply with the subpoena, which is all i am saying. So you arent arguing against anything i have said. And you can't take the 5th on just any question to avoid answering it. That is at the judge's discretion. For example, if you are subpoenaed to testify and refuse to open your mouth or try to plead the 5th when asked your name, the judge can hold you in contempt.

He won't have to show up. His lawyers need only as for immidiate ruling by Supreme Court on constitutionality of trying to impeach a private citizen. Court will end this circus.

 

[Bush92]

Trump will be back in politics again.

He may very well be back to poison the GOP again, either by running as a republican or as an independent, peeling off their fringe nutball votes.

He's not poison. Won in 2020 and every honest person knows it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

His lawyers need only as for immidiate ruling by Supreme Court on constitu

The trial is already scheduled. Why haven't they sought this ruling already, then? You arent thinking these things through before popping off.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Won in 2020 and every honest person knows it.

That is an embarrassing, stupid, dangerous lie, and you are clearly a cultish freak. You weren't always. Trump has really done a number on you. Bye.

 

[meaner gene]

You claimed without immunity, a person couldn't be compelled to testify at all. That's not true. They can force you to show up. They can force you to take the oath.

Sorry, but "compelled to testify" has a specific legal meaning to me that is different than it is to you and Fort Fun. I think Fort Fun realizes that we were mainly just miscommunicating.

I did leave a lot of details and caveats out (for example "testify where one might incriminate oneself"), of course, so my bad.

I sat in a bunch of federal grand jury trials this year. Each subpoenaed witness was instructed that they could take the 5th, or leave the courtroom and discuss things with their attorney at any time.

I don't consider showing up for trial equivalent of testifying. That's when one gives testimony.

As a general rule, a court can force you to testify after sending you a subpoena informing you what testimony they need. ... The testimony includes self incriminating evidence: The constitution gives you the right to avoid giving self-incriminating evidence under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

As I said, they can force you to show up, and force you to take the oath. They can force you to answer questions that do not incriminate you. Remember this is a civil, and not a criminal trial.