Should Senate impeachment trial allow witnesses?

[Thunk]

Don't miss the Trump MERRY CHRISTMAS rally tonight!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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"

Because it's meaningless????

 

[Dana7360]

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

That was the job of the house to do...the senate acts as the jury.

Trump obstructed the House impeachment process by not allowing key witnesses to testify - forcing the House into the courts that would drag out into the 2020 election season.

The person you are replying to doesn't know what they're talking about or they're lying.

The Senate is where the trial happens. Which is why the senators are the jury. The Senate isn't the jury. The senators are. The only reason to have a jury is for a trial.

A trial is where witnesses testify to the jury. The place to have witnesses is a trial.

The House tried to get those people to testify but trump ordered them not too. Which is also a crime. A subpoena is a legal document that requires people to show up and testify. Republicans don't give a damn about our process or the rule of law so we weren't able to get the testimony of all witnesses.

I find it disgusting to see a president obstruct this process with not allowing people to testify they whine and cry that the president didn't get a chance to defend himself or have due process. The president was invited twice by the House to come testify and defend himself. He said no. Then whines he didn't get a chance to defend himself.

These people are making a joke of our nation, our government and our rule of law.

 

[Thunk]

The president was invited twice by the House to come testify and defend himself. He said no. Then whines he didn't get a chance to defend himself.

Bullshit!

The president would be allowed to defend himself if he gave up all his rights...including executive privilege!

No thanks!

Talk about making a joke of our nation, our government and our rule of law.

 

[hadit]

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.

That doesn't give Congress carte blanche to run over the president. He still has rights.

 

[berg80]

They were not allowed to call witnesses.

That's a lie.

 

[bripat9643]

They were not allowed to call witnesses.

That's a lie.

It's the irrefutable truth, moron.

 

[Nostra]

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?

Jurors don't call witnesses.

 

[The Original Tree]

The better question is should Adolph Schiffler have allowed the 10 witnesses requested by The GOP which he denied all 10, as well as denied The Presence of The President's Counsel at certain proceedings Schiff conducted.

The House called all it's witnesses, and then refused to allow Due Process to finish it's course, when The Executive sought The Judiciary's rulings as the official arbitrator of disagreements between The Executive and House, on subpoenas, because...


Quote: Nancy Pelosi: "We aren't going to wait on No Stinking Courts, We Be The House of Reps, and We Say what The Law Is. We don't need No Stinking Courts!"

There should be no further witnesses allowed, unless The President wants them called, as The House made their sloppy case, and now it is The Defense's turn to rebut it.

 

[bripat9643]

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

That was the job of the house to do...the senate acts as the jury.

Trump obstructed the House impeachment process by not allowing key witnesses to testify - forcing the House into the courts that would drag out into the 2020 election season.

The person you are replying to doesn't know what they're talking about or they're lying.

The Senate is where the trial happens. Which is why the senators are the jury. The Senate isn't the jury. The senators are. The only reason to have a jury is for a trial.

A trial is where witnesses testify to the jury. The place to have witnesses is a trial.

The House tried to get those people to testify but trump ordered them not too. Which is also a crime. A subpoena is a legal document that requires people to show up and testify. Republicans don't give a damn about our process or the rule of law so we weren't able to get the testimony of all witnesses.

I find it disgusting to see a president obstruct this process with not allowing people to testify they whine and cry that the president didn't get a chance to defend himself or have due process. The president was invited twice by the House to come testify and defend himself. He said no. Then whines he didn't get a chance to defend himself.

These people are making a joke of our nation, our government and our rule of law.

The senate trial is not like a normal jury trial, moron. The fact finding is done in the House. The Senate debates those facts and then votes on them.

 

[The Original Tree]

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

That was the job of the house to do...the senate acts as the jury.

Trump obstructed the House impeachment process by not allowing key witnesses to testify - forcing the House into the courts that would drag out into the 2020 election season.

The person you are replying to doesn't know what they're talking about or they're lying.

The Senate is where the trial happens. Which is why the senators are the jury. The Senate isn't the jury. The senators are. The only reason to have a jury is for a trial.

A trial is where witnesses testify to the jury. The place to have witnesses is a trial.

The House tried to get those people to testify but trump ordered them not too. Which is also a crime. A subpoena is a legal document that requires people to show up and testify. Republicans don't give a damn about our process or the rule of law so we weren't able to get the testimony of all witnesses.

I find it disgusting to see a president obstruct this process with not allowing people to testify they whine and cry that the president didn't get a chance to defend himself or have due process. The president was invited twice by the House to come testify and defend himself. He said no. Then whines he didn't get a chance to defend himself.

These people are making a joke of our nation, our government and our rule of law.

Subpoena's and Witness Lists can be challenged in Court, and Nancy Pelosi said she did not want to abide by Due Process nor wait for for The Court's Constitutional Duty to serve as The Arbitrator of disagreements and disputes between The House and The Executive Branch.

Impeachment Under The Christmas Tree is all they cared about for America, so they forfeited their rights to add more witnesses, and dumped that lump of coal in America's lap for Christmas, because that is what a good Catholic like Nancy Pelosi is supposed to do, right?

But The House is repeatedly declaring that they have all The Evidence they need to impeach and that it is indisputable, so by their own Official Declarations, No Further Witnesses are needed.

"The evidence is as clear as it is overwhelming," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

Yeah, I'm sure the chief of staff who also happens to be the director of the OMB would not know anything about withholding funding.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The impeachment should not even be dignified by a trial. Throw it out. I thought otherwise but the impeachment is full of partisan hackery. Don't even dignity the house.

 

[The Original Tree]

The impeachment should not even be dignified by a trial. Throw it out. I thought otherwise but the impeachment is full of partisan hackery. Don't even dignity the house.

When you want to be President, but don't want to be bothered with a silly election, what do you do?

If you are Nancy Pelosi, you spend three years trying to impeach President Trump, while preparing to impeach Pence the second you achieve your first objective.

The Divine Emperor Pelosi will not be denied her Throne of Tyranny!

 

[captkaos]

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!

Yeah! 2029 is still along way off though !

 

[lennypartiv]

It would really piss off the Democrats if the Senate voted Trump's way on day one of the Senate trial.

 

[task0778]

It would really piss off the Democrats if the Senate voted Trump's way on day one of the Senate trial.

The Senate Repubs do not want to look as partisan or unfair as the House Dems did, even though the final vote is all but assured for not guilty. Which I think means the trial in the Senate will allow for equal time for the House prosecutors to make their case and then the WH defense attorneys to make theirs, maybe 3 days for each side. A vote will then be taken to conclude the trial part and vote or to keep going with more witnesses. My take is that the GOP-controlled Senate will vote to end it, whereupon they will then vote on each of the two Articles of Impeachment forwarded by the house. If the Senate votes Guilty by a 2/3 majority on either Article, then the President gets removed from office, but don't get your panties in a wad, cuz that ain't going to happen. There's no way the Senate is going to get 67 Guilty votes, and they all know it. So, the Dems will scream and holler about injustice and partisan politics as if they weren't totally guilty of the same thing themselves, but it'll be over. My guess is, 2 weeks, tops.

As for Schumer's request to hear from people higher-up in the Trump Admin, the Dems could've gone to court and forced those guys to testify in the House, but they didn't want to take the time. So, justice can't be patient? They said they had sufficient evidence to vote for impeachment, and are about to do so later today. So be it, I see no reason for the Senate to continue their investigation, looking for more evidence against Trump. Now, after the prosecutors and defense attorneys are done presenting their cases, and the Senate holds a vote to stop the trial and vote for acquital but the vote doesn't pass, then it's Katy bar the door and this thing could go on for weeks or even months. Hard to see that happening though.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Why won't he let the witnesses speak?

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".

 

[my2¢]

It would really piss off the Democrats if the Senate voted Trump's way on day one of the Senate trial.

Indeed it would and I can just hear the Democrats crying over the next 11 months about how the conduct of the trial was just as illegitimate as the 2016 election and casts further shadow over Trump's presidency. And so I'd be against it if I didn't know full well they'd soon enough just find something new to whine about.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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".