Should Senate impeachment trial allow witnesses?

[bigrebnc1775]

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

They aren't. They are within their constitutional authority.

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.

Why won't he let the witnesses speak?

They are not within their Constitutional authority. That is what is being challenged in court. You know, the check on Congress is the Judiciary and the Whitehouse has every right to utilize that check.

What’s the argument that they’re not in their constitutional authority? How does Congress not have a right to subpoena the executive? They’ve been doing it since the early years of the Republic.

They have the right to issue a subpoena. The Executive has the right to claim privilege. The courts are the instrument that determines who is within their Constitutional authority to do so.

That case was already heard during Nixon.

Nixon wasn't impeached

 

[captkaos]

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?

It would seem if the GOP wants to vindicate their child leader they would want as many witnesses as allowed.

If I'm a defense attorney and the Prosecution has no case and has actually proven their was no crime " none charged" I don't need any witnesses do I. I'm not required to prove my client innocent! What part of that don't you people get! In other country's Citizens are required to prove their innocence (Russia for instance) Not here!

 

[colfax_m]

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

Because morons, it isn't the job of the Senate to hold an all new hearing all over again and retry the president a second time, but to JUDGE the case presented them by the House!

Too bad Schiffty wouldn't allow the GOP to call Biden, Hunter and the others they wanted, then they could have gotten Mulvaney and others THEY wanted! Too late now!

Holding a trial is exactly the job of the senate. The house had hearings to determine whether to impeach Trump. Now there will be a trial to determine whether he is guilty.

Exactly. If you ask THE HEAD OF THE SENATE, he will tell you they are now the jury to weigh the case presented them by the House upon which they based their decision to impeach, and JUDGE him guilty of the charges and remove him or acquit him of the charges.

This is a new precedent. In the previous two trials, new evidence was presented at trial.

 

[colfax_m]

They aren't. They are within their constitutional authority.

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.

Why won't he let the witnesses speak?

They are not within their Constitutional authority. That is what is being challenged in court. You know, the check on Congress is the Judiciary and the Whitehouse has every right to utilize that check.

What’s the argument that they’re not in their constitutional authority? How does Congress not have a right to subpoena the executive? They’ve been doing it since the early years of the Republic.

They have the right to issue a subpoena. The Executive has the right to claim privilege. The courts are the instrument that determines who is within their Constitutional authority to do so.

That case was already heard during Nixon.

Nixon wasn't impeached

He was investigated with an impeachment inquiry and attempted to hide evidence and defy subpoenas by claiming executive privilege. He lost the case.

 

[captkaos]

They aren't. They are within their constitutional authority.

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.

Why won't he let the witnesses speak?

They are not within their Constitutional authority. That is what is being challenged in court. You know, the check on Congress is the Judiciary and the Whitehouse has every right to utilize that check.

What’s the argument that they’re not in their constitutional authority? How does Congress not have a right to subpoena the executive? They’ve been doing it since the early years of the Republic.

They have the right to issue a subpoena. The Executive has the right to claim privilege. The courts are the instrument that determines who is within their Constitutional authority to do so.

That case was already heard during Nixon.

Nixon wasn't impeached

A lot of people don't realize that Nixon actually Resigned! And we got Gerald Ford in Exchange. Tricky Dick was going to be impeached and probably removed from office. He ultimately made the best decision for America at the time. Well except for leaving us with Gerald Ford!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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."

The House MUST drop the second charge of "Obstruction"

 

[Thunk]

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.

Not relevant, this is the impeachment of Donald tramp.

What's relevant is not up to you or I...it's up to the majority.

In the house...that's the filth.

In the senate...that's republicans.

If the turtle finds that obamas & bidens crimes are relevant...then they are relevant!

 

[captkaos]

They are not within their Constitutional authority. That is what is being challenged in court. You know, the check on Congress is the Judiciary and the Whitehouse has every right to utilize that check.

What’s the argument that they’re not in their constitutional authority? How does Congress not have a right to subpoena the executive? They’ve been doing it since the early years of the Republic.

They have the right to issue a subpoena. The Executive has the right to claim privilege. The courts are the instrument that determines who is within their Constitutional authority to do so.

That case was already heard during Nixon.

Nixon wasn't impeached

He was investigated with an impeachment inquiry and attempted to hide evidence and defy subpoenas by claiming executive privilege. He lost the case.

So maybe the Dems should have gone to Court. They didn't! They lose in the Senate!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They are not within their Constitutional authority. That is what is being challenged in court. You know, the check on Congress is the Judiciary and the Whitehouse has every right to utilize that check.

What’s the argument that they’re not in their constitutional authority? How does Congress not have a right to subpoena the executive? They’ve been doing it since the early years of the Republic.

They have the right to issue a subpoena. The Executive has the right to claim privilege. The courts are the instrument that determines who is within their Constitutional authority to do so.

That case was already heard during Nixon.

Nixon wasn't impeached

He was investigated with an impeachment inquiry and attempted to hide evidence and defy subpoenas by claiming executive privilege. He lost the case.

No Watergate was investigated not Nixon.it wasn't until after the investigation was over he resigned

 

[colfax_m]

What’s the argument that they’re not in their constitutional authority? How does Congress not have a right to subpoena the executive? They’ve been doing it since the early years of the Republic.

They have the right to issue a subpoena. The Executive has the right to claim privilege. The courts are the instrument that determines who is within their Constitutional authority to do so.

That case was already heard during Nixon.

Nixon wasn't impeached

He was investigated with an impeachment inquiry and attempted to hide evidence and defy subpoenas by claiming executive privilege. He lost the case.

So maybe the Dems should have gone to Court. They didn't! They lose in the Senate!

You’re setting a standard whereby any request of information to the executive will take at least two years to fulfill.

Is that what you want when there’s a Democratic President?

 

[colfax_m]

What’s the argument that they’re not in their constitutional authority? How does Congress not have a right to subpoena the executive? They’ve been doing it since the early years of the Republic.

They have the right to issue a subpoena. The Executive has the right to claim privilege. The courts are the instrument that determines who is within their Constitutional authority to do so.

That case was already heard during Nixon.

Nixon wasn't impeached

He was investigated with an impeachment inquiry and attempted to hide evidence and defy subpoenas by claiming executive privilege. He lost the case.

No Watergate was investigated not Nixon.it wasn't until after the investigation was over he resigned

What are you talking about? You’re claiming Nixon wasn’t investigated as part of the impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon? I think you need to rethink that.

 

[CWayne]

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

They aren't. They are within their constitutional authority.

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.

Why won't he let the witnesses speak?

They are not within their Constitutional authority. That is what is being challenged in court. You know, the check on Congress is the Judiciary and the Whitehouse has every right to utilize that check.

What’s the argument that they’re not in their constitutional authority? How does Congress not have a right to subpoena the executive? They’ve been doing it since the early years of the Republic.

They have the right to issue a subpoena. The Executive has the right to claim privilege. The courts are the instrument that determines who is within their Constitutional authority to do so.

That case was already heard during Nixon.

Each case is different and must be adjudicated each time.

 

[captkaos]

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."

The House MUST drop the second charge of "Obstruction"

The President has the right to show "Contempt for Congress" just like the Senate has the right to show it's "Contempt for Congress" Supreme Court can show contempt for both. Until the Supreme Court decides! There is no "obstruction" for Executive Branch defying Congressional subpoenas. Ain't Democracy great Y'all !

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Pelosi Standard for Impeachment is when the House is controlled by political party that does not control the Presidency

 

[CWayne]

They have the right to issue a subpoena. The Executive has the right to claim privilege. The courts are the instrument that determines who is within their Constitutional authority to do so.

That case was already heard during Nixon.

Nixon wasn't impeached

He was investigated with an impeachment inquiry and attempted to hide evidence and defy subpoenas by claiming executive privilege. He lost the case.

So maybe the Dems should have gone to Court. They didn't! They lose in the Senate!

You’re setting a standard whereby any request of information to the executive will take at least two years to fulfill.

Is that what you want when there’s a Democratic President?

Yes.

I want clear lines of power and solid checks on them. Checks and Balances refer to the powers between branches of government. There are three co-equal branches.

The operative word is 'co-equal'.

 

[Thunk]

.

 

[Thunk]

You’re setting a standard whereby any request of information to the executive will take at least two years to fulfill.

Is that what you want when there’s a Democratic President?

The next democrat president will be impeached within minutes of being sworn in!

 

[berg80]

McTurtle's most cynical deceit was to describe the Senate trial as an entirely partisan exercise. It doesn't have to be, but since NOT A SINGLE Repub will base their vote on the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt, it will be.

 

[colfax_m]

You’re setting a standard whereby any request of information to the executive will take at least two years to fulfill.

Is that what you want when there’s a Democratic President?

The next democrat president will be impeached within minutes of being sworn in!

Promise? I would really love that.

 

[colfax_m]

That case was already heard during Nixon.

Nixon wasn't impeached

He was investigated with an impeachment inquiry and attempted to hide evidence and defy subpoenas by claiming executive privilege. He lost the case.

So maybe the Dems should have gone to Court. They didn't! They lose in the Senate!

You’re setting a standard whereby any request of information to the executive will take at least two years to fulfill.

Is that what you want when there’s a Democratic President?

Yes.

I want clear lines of power and solid checks on them. Checks and Balances refer to the powers between branches of government. There are three co-equal branches.

The operative word is 'co-equal'.

Checks and balances, huh? Doesn’t seem like you want the president to have much of any check to me.