Should Senate impeachment trial allow witnesses?

[bripat9643]

This may be over your head, but there are more important issues here at stake than your lust to destroy Donald Trump.

The Executive Branch is independent and Equal to the Legislative Branch. The principle is not allowing the Legislative to subordinate the Executive.

The principle is to hide the truth. Why won't he let the witnesses speak?

Because the Congress does not get to run roughshod over the Whitehouse.

They can speak if the loses the court case. It is NOT obstruction to use the very system of checks and balances that were put into place to keep one branch from subverting the other.

Because the Congress does not get to run roughshod over the Whitehouse.

Subpoenas related to impeachment is not "running roughshod".

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

Sure.
As long as they are the witnesses the Republicans want to put forth.
Dems shouldnt get jackshit for witnesses just like they did in congress to Republicans.

Republicans didn’t request any witnesses.

Why do you lie?

I was using the term witness as a literal one. They called for the whistleblower, whom just a few months ago was decried by Republicans as not a witness to any behavior (hearsay, remember?). They also called Hunter Biden who as far as I know has not witnessed anything in the White House since 2016 and has never been to Ukraine.

They can call any “witness” they want but unless they’re actually witnesses, I don’t consider their request legitimate.

Who the fuck cares what you consider legitimate? The whistle blower can be called to identify the person they received the information about the cal from. That person is not afforded any protection under the law.

That would accomplish what?
The WB's complaint has been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

All pertinent people should testify and all pertinent documents should be released to the Senate for the trial....why the hell not unless fat donnie is hiding something.

Because the House impeachment is a sham. We all know that. Mitchell is going to follow the same rules used in the Clinton impeachment trial. If they were good enough for him, then why do you have a problem with them?

 

[bripat9643]

Sure.
As long as they are the witnesses the Republicans want to put forth.
Dems shouldnt get jackshit for witnesses just like they did in congress to Republicans.

Republicans didn’t request any witnesses.

Why do you lie?

I was using the term witness as a literal one. They called for the whistleblower, whom just a few months ago was decried by Republicans as not a witness to any behavior (hearsay, remember?). They also called Hunter Biden who as far as I know has not witnessed anything in the White House since 2016 and has never been to Ukraine.

They can call any “witness” they want but unless they’re actually witnesses, I don’t consider their request legitimate.

Who the fuck cares what you consider legitimate? The whistle blower can be called to identify the person they received the information about the cal from. That person is not afforded any protection under the law.

That would accomplish what?
The WB's complaint has been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

It doesn't matter whether you think its useful. The Republicans think it is, and they are entitled to call him.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

Ask Nader and Schiff that question... you hit your head recently?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Your deceitful lie does not change the fact that Trump has the choice of allowing the testimony of what his claims imply are witnesses who will exonerate him.

Trump claims he didn't do anything wrong.

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.

If the witnesses will exonerate him, why won't he let the witnesses speak?

"Your deceitful lie does not change the fact that Trump has the choice of allowing the testimony of what his claims imply are witnesses who will exonerate him"​

You neatly danced around the fact that the Repubs were not allowed to call the witnesses they wanted to call. That's dishonest. In other words, you're a douchebag.

The rules of the impeachment inquiry stated that the standard for witnesses was that they must be relevant to the proceedings. Not "witnesses they wanted to call".

Why do you believe anyone gives a shit about Adolph Schiffler's arbitrary, spur of the moment rules?

They aren't "Schiff's arbitrary rules". They are the rules set forth in the impeachment resolution thay was passed by the House, dope.

Huh? The resolution that passed yesterday determined the rules that Adolph Schiffler operated under?

You're such an idiot.
No, dope. The resolution regarding the impeachment inquiry. Obviously.

House Passes Resolution Formalizing Impeachment Inquiry

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The principle is to hide the truth. Why won't he let the witnesses speak?

Because the Congress does not get to run roughshod over the Whitehouse.

They can speak if the loses the court case. It is NOT obstruction to use the very system of checks and balances that were put into place to keep one branch from subverting the other.

Because the Congress does not get to run roughshod over the Whitehouse.

Subpoenas related to impeachment is not "running roughshod".

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

 

[CWayne]

This may be over your head, but there are more important issues here at stake than your lust to destroy Donald Trump.

The Executive Branch is independent and Equal to the Legislative Branch. The principle is not allowing the Legislative to subordinate the Executive.

The principle is to hide the truth. Why won't he let the witnesses speak?

Because the Congress does not get to run roughshod over the Whitehouse.

They can speak if the loses the court case. It is NOT obstruction to use the very system of checks and balances that were put into place to keep one branch from subverting the other.

Because the Congress does not get to run roughshod over the Whitehouse.

Subpoenas related to impeachment is not "running roughshod".

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

A subpoena, in this case, is issued against an equal branch of government that has rights the same as the Congress. When disputes arise on whether or not the supoena is proper, it goes to the court for determination. That too is a right of the Executive. That is NOT obstruction.

Dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Republicans didn’t request any witnesses.

Why do you lie?

I was using the term witness as a literal one. They called for the whistleblower, whom just a few months ago was decried by Republicans as not a witness to any behavior (hearsay, remember?). They also called Hunter Biden who as far as I know has not witnessed anything in the White House since 2016 and has never been to Ukraine.

They can call any “witness” they want but unless they’re actually witnesses, I don’t consider their request legitimate.

Who the fuck cares what you consider legitimate? The whistle blower can be called to identify the person they received the information about the cal from. That person is not afforded any protection under the law.

That would accomplish what?
The WB's complaint has been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

It doesn't matter whether you think its useful. The Republicans think it is, and they are entitled to call him.

LOL....
So... IOW, you have no clue but agree anyway.

 

[CWayne]

Because the Congress does not get to run roughshod over the Whitehouse.

They can speak if the loses the court case. It is NOT obstruction to use the very system of checks and balances that were put into place to keep one branch from subverting the other.

Because the Congress does not get to run roughshod over the Whitehouse.

Subpoenas related to impeachment is not "running roughshod".

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The principle is to hide the truth. Why won't he let the witnesses speak?

Because the Congress does not get to run roughshod over the Whitehouse.

They can speak if the loses the court case. It is NOT obstruction to use the very system of checks and balances that were put into place to keep one branch from subverting the other.

Because the Congress does not get to run roughshod over the Whitehouse.

Subpoenas related to impeachment is not "running roughshod".

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

A subpoena, in this case, is issued against an equal branch of government that has rights the same as the Congress. When disputes arise on whether or not the supoena is proper, it goes to the court for determination. That too is a right of the Executive. That is NOT obstruction.

Dope.

There is no dispute, dope. Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. Especially in regard to impeachment. Period.

 

[colfax_m]

Subpoenas related to impeachment is not "running roughshod".

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

 

[CWayne]

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

Trump’s fight against subpoenas reaches Supreme Court

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Subpoenas related to impeachment is not "running roughshod".

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

Total retarded nonsense.
There is no such thing as an "improper supoena". A body either has the authority to compel testimony or not.

 

[CWayne]

They are when they are based solely on politics and no evidence. Regardless, using the court to protect privilege is NOT obstrucdtion.

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

Total retarded nonsense.
There is no such thing as an "improper supoena". A body either has the authority to compel testimony or not.

If they don't, then it is an 'improper' subpoena.

Have a nice day. You are far to flawed in your thinking to bother with right now.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

Total retarded nonsense.
There is no such thing as an "improper supoena". A body either has the authority to compel testimony or not.

If they don't, then it is an 'improper' subpoena.

Have a nice day. You are far to flawed in your thinking to bother with right now.

In this case they certainly have the authority to do so, dope.

 

[Pilot1]

The Democrats know this is a sham Impeachment and it will go nowhere in the Senate. The Republicans know the Democrats did this as a campaign tactic to smear Trump, as do most of the thinking public. However, the Dems and the Media will get to repeat Trump was Impeached in the House through election day in an effort to get votes. It will FAIL.

 

[bripat9643]

"Your deceitful lie does not change the fact that Trump has the choice of allowing the testimony of what his claims imply are witnesses who will exonerate him"​

You neatly danced around the fact that the Repubs were not allowed to call the witnesses they wanted to call. That's dishonest. In other words, you're a douchebag.

The rules of the impeachment inquiry stated that the standard for witnesses was that they must be relevant to the proceedings. Not "witnesses they wanted to call".

Why do you believe anyone gives a shit about Adolph Schiffler's arbitrary, spur of the moment rules?

They aren't "Schiff's arbitrary rules". They are the rules set forth in the impeachment resolution thay was passed by the House, dope.

Huh? The resolution that passed yesterday determined the rules that Adolph Schiffler operated under?

You're such an idiot.
No, dope. The resolution regarding the impeachment inquiry. Obviously.

House Passes Resolution Formalizing Impeachment Inquiry

Then they are the Dim's arbitrary rules.

In her press conference ahead of the vote, Pelosi pushed back on Republican claims that the process is a "sham" and unfair to the president. The procedures in the resolution are "very transparent and open," she said, "giving more privileges to the president and his argument than were given in the past."

Republican leadership after the vote slammed what they called a "Soviet-style process." House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy asserted, "There's nothing the president did to be impeached."

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., noted that not only did all Republicans voted against the resolution, but so did two Democrats. "The House deserves better, the people of this country deserve better. We should be tackling real problems," he said, arguing that Pelosi is "infatuated" with impeachment.​

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you lie?

I was using the term witness as a literal one. They called for the whistleblower, whom just a few months ago was decried by Republicans as not a witness to any behavior (hearsay, remember?). They also called Hunter Biden who as far as I know has not witnessed anything in the White House since 2016 and has never been to Ukraine.

They can call any “witness” they want but unless they’re actually witnesses, I don’t consider their request legitimate.

Who the fuck cares what you consider legitimate? The whistle blower can be called to identify the person they received the information about the cal from. That person is not afforded any protection under the law.

That would accomplish what?
The WB's complaint has been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

It doesn't matter whether you think its useful. The Republicans think it is, and they are entitled to call him.

LOL....
So... IOW, you have no clue but agree anyway.

I said they are entitled. I'm not sure I understand what you believe I'm agreeing with.

 

[colfax_m]

A subpoena is issued to gather evidence. It's not based on evidence, dope. It is willful obstruction of a lawful subpoens as they aren't "using the court to protect privilege".
The courts would be used to get an order for the WH to cooperate with the subpoena.

You're a giant dunce. Trump is following the lawful procedure. Sorry you can't deal with it.

What is the "lawful procedure"?

If you think the subpoena is not proper, you go to court. That is the lawful procedure. AND, it is the White House's right to do so.

The White House has not gone to court. They just ignored the subpoena.

Trump’s fight against subpoenas reaches Supreme Court

Totally separate case. Has nothing to do with impeachment.

And the only reason there’s a case here at all is because Trump doesn’t have the power to order his accounting firm to refuse a Congressional subpoena.