Should Senate impeachment trial allow witnesses?

[bripat9643]

Of course, there should be witnesses. The republicans are just playing games. Their president was given every opportunity during the impeachment investigation to testify and have his staff testify, who were in the best position to provide evidence to exonerate him, but he refused, and now cries foul. These same witnesses should appear at trial. They would only help his case, right?

It is shameful that some in the Senate have openly stated that they will not sit as impartial jurors, thumbing their noses at the oath that they took and demonstrating extreme disloyalty to the U.S.A.

No they weren't. Presidents never testify before Congress, numskull, so that claim is fatuous on its face. They were not allowed to call witnesses. Calling the witnesses Adolph Schiffler wanted is a scam and a violation of due process.

Dims whining that Repubs are not impartial is hilarious.

Sorry you don't like the way the cards have been dealt, but the Dims are going to have to play their hand, and so will the Republicans.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not from those criminal Dims in the House. I'd rather have Al Capone as a check.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Not from those criminal Dims in the House. I'd rather have Al Capone as a check.

I’d rather go with what the constitution requires than what you want.

 

[debbiedowner]

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!

Have you seen all the evidence Mr defense attorney? Is impeachment the same as a trial you would represent a client? Isn't it so Mr defense attorney if you have already ended up in court that the prosecution must have a case or you would not be there? So in other words an ambulance chaser?

 

[captkaos]

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?

Perhaps that's an issue that the Congress and Senate should address. They have the Ability to change the laws make new laws and streamline the process if that's what Their constituents request. They Represent us and We elect them to act on our behalf. The Courts again would have the Final word on whether the laws are Constitutional Dems hate that part..... Especially with a Conservative Court!

 

[bripat9643]

Let's see, why would anyone in their right mind NOT want their associates to be put under oath and grilled by a howling mob out for blood?

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

Good question. Why hasn't the House taken the steps to force testimony?

Because the withholding of testimony by the president is a delaying technique.

 

[bripat9643]

trump forfeited any pretense that he is legitimate by his complete failure to come forth and to allow his subordinates to come forth in front of the public. They have been offered every opportunity to come forth and testify under oath. They have hidden everything they do from the American People, and yet whine that they have not been treated fairly.

The orange whore even hides his finances, which every other president has been open about. I will not even go into his treatment of his fellow Americans, as well as immigrants, and his refusal to listen to the professionals working in national security and foreign affairs to keep our country safe, and his repudiation of them in favor of kissing putin's ass.

Not true. The democrats need only to wait for the courts do make a decision.

Which begs the question as to why he has not come forward, along with his potentially exculpatory witnesses. Delaying tactics do not erase the implications of his behavior. He has brought this on himself by his own actions.

The Dims didn't allow him to all his witnesses, shit for brains. Why do you brain dead morons keep forgetting that essential fact?

Trump did most definitely did not bring this on himself. This is just another coup arranged by Dim skullduggery.

 

[Thunk]

Because the withholding of testimony by the president is a delaying technique.

Not allowing repub's to call witnesses is a filth technique.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not from those criminal Dims in the House. I'd rather have Al Capone as a check.

I’d rather go with what the constitution requires than what you want.

How do you like this check, asshole?: The Repubs in the Senate vote not to have witnesses.

 

[bripat9643]

Because the withholding of testimony by the president is a delaying technique.

Not allowing repub's to call witnesses is a filth technique.

It's a Stalinist technique.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Just that so many people think that there should be witnesses presented to the senate exposes how badly we need to start teaching civics again.

 

[captkaos]

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

Good question. Why hasn't the House taken the steps to force testimony?

Because the withholding of testimony by the president is a delaying technique.

They'd rather America know there is no there, there, now rather than in June . They hope America is stupid enough to forget the Lies about collusion, Quid pro quo, bribery, Kaboogery , etc. We won't.. This is like a Cop pulling you over for DWI not performing a field test, Or breathalyzer, and only his testimony. He pulled you over and said you were drunk so you have to be guilty. The Prosecutor didn't present evidence that the officer who pulled you over is your wife's ex husbands best friend!

 

[task0778]

I highly doubt any witness on either side is going to reveal anything we don't already know. Fuck it, I think the house reps make their case and then the WH reps make their's and they vote. This bullshit has gone on enough IMHO and besides, the outcome is already known. Why waste any more time?

The trial should proceed and the witnesses that are called need to appear and testify. That is how trials work, and that is how the Constitution outlines impeachment procedures.
I never heard of "negotiating" whether there will be witnesses. What kind of bizarre world is this, anyway?

I was unaware that the Constitution stipulates procedures for how an impeachment trial should proceed, to include mentioning witnesses. To be honest, I don't really care if they call wiitnesses and drag this thing out because the verdict is already baked in and the Senate is NOT going to remove Trump from office. Nor should they BTW. IMHO, I think the Senate should hear from the House prosecutors and then from the Trump defense attorney(s) and then decide whether to continue or not with the trial (call witnesses) or conduct the vote then and there. If they want to call witnesses and keep this story going for a couple of months, so be it. But I'm pretty sure that most people want this crap to go away and focus more on the issues and problems that most of us want addressed.

 

[hadit]

This impeachment bullshit has gone too long.
We all know that the Republicans in the Senate will vote NO, so vote asap and move on to more important shit like the economy and the trade war with china.
Bunch of incompetent retards running America like it's a banana republic.

The point is we don't want to become a banana republic where the dictators are free to roam. McConnel and others have guaranteed that they wouldn't convict trump no matter what he did. Well, if that's true, a trial in the senate will show this country, the world and future voters how corrupt the republicans have become.

That's not what they said. They said they would not convict on these articles of impeachment. Big difference.

 

[hadit]

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

Good question. Why hasn't the House taken the steps to force testimony?

Because the withholding of testimony by the president is a delaying technique.

If course it is, and the House democrats knew he could do it when they started the process. Now if they were really interested in justice more than a campaign issue, they would have been ready for a court battle. They were not, and that tells me they were more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

 

[bripat9643]

I highly doubt any witness on either side is going to reveal anything we don't already know. Fuck it, I think the house reps make their case and then the WH reps make their's and they vote. This bullshit has gone on enough IMHO and besides, the outcome is already known. Why waste any more time?

The trial should proceed and the witnesses that are called need to appear and testify. That is how trials work, and that is how the Constitution outlines impeachment procedures.
I never heard of "negotiating" whether there will be witnesses. What kind of bizarre world is this, anyway?

I was unaware that the Constitution stipulates procedures for how an impeachment trial should proceed, to include mentioning witnesses. To be honest, I don't really care because the verdict is already baked in and the Senate is NOT going to remove Trump from office. Nor should they BTW. IMHO, I think the Senate should hear from the House prosecutors and then from the Trump defense attorney(s) and then decide whether to continue or not with the trial (call witnesses) or conduct the vote then and there. If they want to call witnesses and keep this story going for a couple of months, so be it. But I'm pretty sure that most people want this crap to go away and focus more on the issues and problems that most of us want addressed.

They most definitely should not call any witnesses. We all know what kind of circus that will allow.

 

[CWayne]

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.

Of course, he has a check. It is called the Judiciary. Congress takes the President to court and if they are in the right, the court tells the President that he cannot stop the subpoena's. Or in this case, the Congress' lawyers argue that the President does not have Exec privilege and that the subpenas will be upheld or they will be denied.

That is how all this works. None of it, though, is obstruction.

 

[CWayne]

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

Good question. Why hasn't the House taken the steps to force testimony?

Because the withholding of testimony by the president is a delaying technique.

A legal one. It is NOT obstruction. Besides, he could lose the court challenge.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Of course, he has a check. It is called the Judiciary. Congress takes the President to court and if they are in the right, the court tells the President that he cannot stop the subpoena's. Or in this case, the Congress' lawyers argue that the President does not have Exec privilege and that the subpenas will be upheld or they will be denied.

That is how all this works. None of it, though, is obstruction.

The impeachment process is the sole authority of the legislature.