Should the Senate trial include new information and testimony?

[task0778]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new federal judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

 

[WillowTree]

They started their impeachment before he was sworn in. They are asslickers!

 

[alang1216]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

Trump claiming justice delayed is justice denied after he stopped everyone he could from testifying, is like the man who murders his parents and claims leniency because he is an orphan.

Clinton was deposed by Starr under oath and that was the sole basis for his impeachment, let Starr depose Trump, seems only fair.

 

[bendog]

JMO but no. It's really all about theatre. Pelosi only allowed impeachment to go forward when it seemed Trump had every intention of continuing to use his presidential powers to influence an election, so she had no option, besides just letting him, other than hitting him with her biggest stick. And impeachment was the stick.

No one in their right minds thought McConnell would let him be kicked out. But Impeachment made even some gopers acknowledge that what Trump was doing was not ok, and the facts continue to come out. And Bolton will someday have a book. If abusing the powers of office by extorting Ukraine for personal gain isn't a reason for someone to not vote for Trump .. well neither would his shooting someone on 5th ave.

 

[task0778]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

Trump claiming justice delayed is justice denied after he stopped everyone he could from testifying, is like the man who murders his parents and claims leniency because he is an orphan.

Clinton was deposed by Starr under oath and that was the sole basis for his impeachment, let Starr depose Trump, seems only fair.

You didn't seem to mind when Obama did the exact same thing, over and over again.

Starr is part of Trump's team, you're okay with him deposing Trump? Frankly, I'm not seeing the need, the case against Trump is ridiculously weak and never should have gotten this far in the first place. What we have here is nothing more than an attempt by the Dems to drag this thing out as long as possible, looking for a miracle. Enough is enough, end this bullshit and let's get on with working on the people's business like Trump is doing instead of the Democratic Party's business which they are doing.

 

[White 6]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

Trump claiming justice delayed is justice denied after he stopped everyone he could from testifying, is like the man who murders his parents and claims leniency because he is an orphan.

Clinton was deposed by Starr under oath and that was the sole basis for his impeachment, let Starr depose Trump, seems only fair.

You didn't seem to mind when Obama did the exact same thing, over and over again.

Starr is part of Trump's team, you're okay with him deposing Trump? Frankly, I'm not seeing the need, the case against Trump is ridiculously weak and never should have gotten this far in the first place. What we have here is nothing more than an attempt by the Dems to drag this thing out as long as possible, looking for a miracle. Enough is enough, end this bullshit and let's get on with working on the people's business like Trump is doing instead of the Democratic Party's business which they are doing.

Trump deposed by somebody, anybody? Heck, he did not appear to give the whole truth last time he was sent questions to answer. No reason to expect more candor at this point. If he is allowed to submit a depostion, The democrats should have an opportunity to directly cross examine, live. Otherwise he "deposition" is just like jacking off in a jar from a distance. Useless.

 

[S.J.]

The reason Nancy delayed the trial was to give Schiff time to line up another whistleblower (Parnas). You can bet your ass they're lining up more so they can parade them out systematically as if they just happened to come forward at exactly the right time. The American people will see through this production as well.

 

[White 6]

The reason Nancy delayed the trial was to give Schiff time to line up another whistleblower (Parnas). You can bet your ass they're lining up more so they can parade them out systematically as if they just happened to come forward at exactly the right time. The American people will see through this production as well.

New witnesses for the Democratic case? Possibly. The only real question, since the Republicans will acquit anyway, is to what lengths they will go, to break their new oaths of impartiality, before the Supreme Court Justice and the country to silence any testimony, and what effect it will have on the electorate by election day.

 

[WillowTree]

The reason Nancy delayed the trial was to give Schiff time to line up another whistleblower (Parnas). You can bet your ass they're lining up more so they can parade them out systematically as if they just happened to come forward at exactly the right time. The American people will see through this production as well.

New witnesses for the Democratic case? Possibly. The only real question, since the Republicans will acquit anyway, is to what lengths they will go, to break their new oaths of impartiality, before the Supreme Court Justice and the country to silence any testimony, and what effect it will have on the electorate by election day.

Name one democrat whom ewe will think to be impartial? Dumbass.

 

[2aguy]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

They had their chance to bring in all the witnesses they wanted.....but that would have dragged the impeachment on way too long for their purposes.......This is nothing more than the prosecutor bringing the case to trial without doing all the work...sorry, if I had control, no witnesses......the Senate is the jury, the case was tried in the House...this would be like giving the case to the jury, then the prosecutor saying....hey wait...we want to add more to it...

Too late......the jury has the case.

 

[2aguy]

The trial was in the House, the jury now has the case for a verdict.....the prosecutor doesn't get to come in and say they want to add some more witnesses when the jury already has the case.

 

[OldLady]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

It's all evidence about the same situation, though. It's not like suddenly investigating a blow job instead of a real estate deal. We should get all the relevant evidence presented. What are you worried about? You folks have already decided Trump is innocent anyway, and his political junkies are falling in line. So what would it hurt to have as much information as possible in the record?

Someday, historians are going to look back and be amazed at what a crooked bunch of greedy bastards the Republicans chose to be.

 

[WillowTree]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

It's all evidence about the same situation, though. It's not like suddenly investigating a blow job instead of a real estate deal. We should get all the relevant evidence presented. What are you worried about? You folks have already decided Trump is innocent anyway, and his political junkies are falling in line. So what would it hurt to have as much information as possible in the record?

Someday, historians are going to look back and be amazed at what a crooked bunch of greedy bastards the Republicans chose to be.

And you have decided he was guilty. Right moron?

 

[White 6]

The reason Nancy delayed the trial was to give Schiff time to line up another whistleblower (Parnas). You can bet your ass they're lining up more so they can parade them out systematically as if they just happened to come forward at exactly the right time. The American people will see through this production as well.

New witnesses for the Democratic case? Possibly. The only real question, since the Republicans will acquit anyway, is to what lengths they will go, to break their new oaths of impartiality, before the Supreme Court Justice and the country to silence any testimony, and what effect it will have on the electorate by election day.

Name one democrat whom ewe will think to be impartial? Dumbass.

Why, dufus? Did you think Democrats were the primary ones that would obstruct new witnesses to say what went on and why Trump did and why, noting why is nowhere near as important as what. Everyone knows he is guilty of the charges, just at everyone knows he will be acquitted. He is justifiably Impeached. This show trial, at this point is about incidental damages incurred by the parties after the fact. Relax. Enjoy the show. Root for your side. Everybody that matters will come through this alive.

 

[bendog]

The Russians were masters of show trials. Go Moscow Mitch. LOL

 

[task0778]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

They had their chance to bring in all the witnesses they wanted.....but that would have dragged the impeachment on way too long for their purposes.......This is nothing more than the prosecutor bringing the case to trial without doing all the work...sorry, if I had control, no witnesses......the Senate is the jury, the case was tried in the House...this would be like giving the case to the jury, then the prosecutor saying....hey wait...we want to add more to it...

Too late......the jury has the case.

Am I wrong, or did the House include in it's documentation the Parnas stuff? He didn't testify under oath, no cross examination, and his documents were not verified. In fact, I think he asked to testify but was denied. So, I'm guessing that when the House makes it's case and if it gets to the point where they are introducing whatever Parnas said or whatever documents he may have given the Dems, there should be an objection made on the grounds that if it wasn't in the original inquiry that the House based their Articles of Impeachment on and voted for then it shouldn't be part of the Senate trial. I have no idea what the Senate rules might be on that, but theoretically this trial could last for a long time if the Dems are allowed to continually add new witnesses and information. Remember, as the Dems said themselves, they can always impeach Trump again if new data surfaces.

 

[lennypartiv]

The only thing this trial needs is a vote to acquit.

 

[WillowTree]

The reason Nancy delayed the trial was to give Schiff time to line up another whistleblower (Parnas). You can bet your ass they're lining up more so they can parade them out systematically as if they just happened to come forward at exactly the right time. The American people will see through this production as well.

New witnesses for the Democratic case? Possibly. The only real question, since the Republicans will acquit anyway, is to what lengths they will go, to break their new oaths of impartiality, before the Supreme Court Justice and the country to silence any testimony, and what effect it will have on the electorate by election day.

Name one democrat whom ewe will think to be impartial? Dumbass.

Why, dufus? Did you think Democrats were the primary ones that would obstruct new witnesses to say what went on and why Trump did and why, noting why is nowhere near as important as what. Everyone knows he is guilty of the charges, just at everyone knows he will be acquitted. He is justifiably Impeached. This show trial, at this point is about incidental damages incurred by the parties after the fact. Relax. Enjoy the show. Root for your side. Everybody that matters will come through this alive.

So you are bitching about Republicans swearing to impartiality while not expecting the asslicking democrats to be the same.? I rest my case moron.

 

[OldLady]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

It's all evidence about the same situation, though. It's not like suddenly investigating a blow job instead of a real estate deal. We should get all the relevant evidence presented. What are you worried about? You folks have already decided Trump is innocent anyway, and his political junkies are falling in line. So what would it hurt to have as much information as possible in the record?

Someday, historians are going to look back and be amazed at what a crooked bunch of greedy bastards the Republicans chose to be.

And you have decided he was guilty. Right moron?

Of course he's guilty.

 

[WillowTree]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

It's all evidence about the same situation, though. It's not like suddenly investigating a blow job instead of a real estate deal. We should get all the relevant evidence presented. What are you worried about? You folks have already decided Trump is innocent anyway, and his political junkies are falling in line. So what would it hurt to have as much information as possible in the record?

Someday, historians are going to look back and be amazed at what a crooked bunch of greedy bastards the Republicans chose to be.

And you have decided he was guilty. Right moron?

Of course he's guilty.

Then what are ewe afraid off?