Why Is The GOP Senate So Afraid To Call Witnesses??

[Care4all]

These Russian-esque tactics of Trump using his govt position to hurt or harm, charge or jail his political rival is what he was impeached for.....

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

Ordinarily, when witnesses are called for a trial, the Defense has the right to talk with the witnesses before hand, find out what they are going to say.

Would you have a problem with that?

Nope not as long as their testimony is not blocked or distorted.

Agree, plus the prosecutors should also have the same time to question them before testifying, on witnesses that have not previously testified....

Though I am not certain it works that way in a real trial.... usually the defense does not get to question the prosecutor's witnesses, until the trial, they can cross examine them there, on the stand, same with defense witnesses, prosecutors cross examine them in the trial.

The questioning in an impeachment is supposed to be done by the House...the Senate then takes what's been shown by the House and rules on it. It's akin to a jury deliberation in an actual trial. You don't get to send additional witnesses into a jury room to affect the ruling...they can ask for testimony to be read back to them but the questioning part is over. The jury...which is the Senate in this case...is there to do one thing and one thing alone...rule on the evidence or lack thereof...that's been presented by the House!

This Senate is only there to cover for Trump.

 

[The Purge]

If we play by the party of INFANTICIDES rules, We get to call this jerk and his son for FULL INTERROGATION!

Have your own impeachment t trial to do it.... Joe can still be impeached I think, and voted to not allow him to ever serve again... can't run for president....

Or get the DOJ to investigate and charge him with a crime..... surely Trump can have Barr make up something...

Why make up the truth that is right before your eyes. For the life of me I don't understand what is taking so long with the Biden investigation, unless it is like Mueller ...take almost 3 years and over $35 million in salaries to prove nothing, OR as I suspect all this crap will hit the fan AFTER the party of INFANTICIDE finally KNOWS which clown will be their nominee and drop indictments on them just a week prior to the DNC convention to really screw up the CommieRAT party....guess we will have to wait to find out!

 

[Superbadbrutha]

If we play by the party of INFANTICIDES rules, We get to call this jerk and his son for FULL INTERROGATION!

Have your own impeachment t trial to do it.... Joe can still be impeached I think, and voted to not allow him to ever serve again... can't run for president....

Or get the DOJ to investigate and charge him with a crime..... surely Trump can have Barr make up something...

Why make up the truth that is right before your eyes. For the life of me I don't understand what is taking so long with the Biden investigation, unless it is like Mueller ...take almost 3 years and over $35 million in salaries to prove nothing, OR as I suspect all this crap will hit the fan AFTER the party of INFANTICIDE finally KNOWS which clown will be their nominee and drop indictments on them just a week prior to the DNC convention to really screw up the CommieRAT party....guess we will have to wait to find out!

Or maybe it is just more of the right wing deflection bullshit.

 

[Polishprince]

If we play by the party of INFANTICIDES rules, We get to call this jerk and his son for FULL INTERROGATION!

Have your own impeachment t trial to do it.... Joe can still be impeached I think, and voted to not allow him to ever serve again... can't run for president....

Or get the DOJ to investigate and charge him with a crime..... surely Trump can have Barr make up something...

Why make up the truth that is right before your eyes. For the life of me I don't understand what is taking so long with the Biden investigation, unless it is like Mueller ...take almost 3 years and over $35 million in salaries to prove nothing, OR as I suspect all this crap will hit the fan AFTER the party of INFANTICIDE finally KNOWS which clown will be their nominee and drop indictments on them just a week prior to the DNC convention to really screw up the CommieRAT party....guess we will have to wait to find out!

Or maybe it is just more of the right wing deflection bullshit.

Why is there so much anxiety about the Libs losing control? Are the Lib Leaders afraid that the teeming masses of POV's under Obama will like the idea of working and earning their own way? Or is it from the POV's who are missing the Obamaphones they got instead of jobs during Obamunist rule?

 

[The Purge]

If we play by the party of INFANTICIDES rules, We get to call this jerk and his son for FULL INTERROGATION!

Have your own impeachment t trial to do it.... Joe can still be impeached I think, and voted to not allow him to ever serve again... can't run for president....

Or get the DOJ to investigate and charge him with a crime..... surely Trump can have Barr make up something...

Why make up the truth that is right before your eyes. For the life of me I don't understand what is taking so long with the Biden investigation, unless it is like Mueller ...take almost 3 years and over $35 million in salaries to prove nothing, OR as I suspect all this crap will hit the fan AFTER the party of INFANTICIDE finally KNOWS which clown will be their nominee and drop indictments on them just a week prior to the DNC convention to really screw up the CommieRAT party....guess we will have to wait to find out!

Or maybe it is just more of the right wing deflection bullshit.

You wouldn't know the TRUTH, even if it hit you between the eyes with a 2x4....you mind manipulated dolt...or perhaps you are also getting a DNC check for disinformation!...but even the DNC realizes a black thug doing it isn't worth the money spent!

 

[Oldstyle]

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

Ordinarily, when witnesses are called for a trial, the Defense has the right to talk with the witnesses before hand, find out what they are going to say.

Would you have a problem with that?

Nope not as long as their testimony is not blocked or distorted.

Agree, plus the prosecutors should also have the same time to question them before testifying, on witnesses that have not previously testified....

Though I am not certain it works that way in a real trial.... usually the defense does not get to question the prosecutor's witnesses, until the trial, they can cross examine them there, on the stand, same with defense witnesses, prosecutors cross examine them in the trial.

The questioning in an impeachment is supposed to be done by the House...the Senate then takes what's been shown by the House and rules on it. It's akin to a jury deliberation in an actual trial. You don't get to send additional witnesses into a jury room to affect the ruling...they can ask for testimony to be read back to them but the questioning part is over. The jury...which is the Senate in this case...is there to do one thing and one thing alone...rule on the evidence or lack thereof...that's been presented by the House!

Nope. Every impeachment trial in our history, has had witnesses and evidence presented in the trial.

The jury, does NOT DELIBERATE until all evidence and witnesses are heard, from both sides, and both sides have given their closing arguments....it's the last thing that happens in any trial or impeachment, the jury's deliberation, and their verdict.

Evidence and witnesses are what the HOUSE is supposed to provide, Care! The Senate is supposed to rule on the evidence and the witness testimony that the House provides. No impeachment trial in US history has had new witnesses called to testify in a Senate "do over"! The reason the Pelosi is reluctant to send articles of impeachment to the Senate is that she knows only too well that Democrats didn't come close to PROVING what they've charged Trump with! A President sets foreign policy. A President is well within his rights asking that corruption involving a US politician taking place in a foreign nation asking for foreign aid be investigated before that aid is granted. The "obstruction" charge is laughable and always has been.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Ordinarily, when witnesses are called for a trial, the Defense has the right to talk with the witnesses before hand, find out what they are going to say.

Would you have a problem with that?

Nope not as long as their testimony is not blocked or distorted.

Agree, plus the prosecutors should also have the same time to question them before testifying, on witnesses that have not previously testified....

Though I am not certain it works that way in a real trial.... usually the defense does not get to question the prosecutor's witnesses, until the trial, they can cross examine them there, on the stand, same with defense witnesses, prosecutors cross examine them in the trial.

The questioning in an impeachment is supposed to be done by the House...the Senate then takes what's been shown by the House and rules on it. It's akin to a jury deliberation in an actual trial. You don't get to send additional witnesses into a jury room to affect the ruling...they can ask for testimony to be read back to them but the questioning part is over. The jury...which is the Senate in this case...is there to do one thing and one thing alone...rule on the evidence or lack thereof...that's been presented by the House!

Nope. Every impeachment trial in our history, has had witnesses and evidence presented in the trial.

The jury, does NOT DELIBERATE until all evidence and witnesses are heard, from both sides, and both sides have given their closing arguments....it's the last thing that happens in any trial or impeachment, the jury's deliberation, and their verdict.

Evidence and witnesses are what the HOUSE is supposed to provide, Care! The Senate is supposed to rule on the evidence and the witness testimony that the House provides. No impeachment trial in US history has had new witnesses called to testify in a Senate "do over"! The reason the Pelosi is reluctant to send articles of impeachment to the Senate is that she knows only too well that Democrats didn't come close to PROVING what they've charged Trump with! A President sets foreign policy. A President is well within his rights asking that corruption involving a US politician taking place in a foreign nation asking for foreign aid be investigated before that aid is granted. The "obstruction" charge is laughable and always has been.

Just more of the same Trump Humpin excuse making.

 

[Polishprince]

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

Ordinarily, when witnesses are called for a trial, the Defense has the right to talk with the witnesses before hand, find out what they are going to say.

Would you have a problem with that?

Nope not as long as their testimony is not blocked or distorted.

Agree, plus the prosecutors should also have the same time to question them before testifying, on witnesses that have not previously testified....

Though I am not certain it works that way in a real trial.... usually the defense does not get to question the prosecutor's witnesses, until the trial, they can cross examine them there, on the stand, same with defense witnesses, prosecutors cross examine them in the trial.

The questioning in an impeachment is supposed to be done by the House...the Senate then takes what's been shown by the House and rules on it. It's akin to a jury deliberation in an actual trial. You don't get to send additional witnesses into a jury room to affect the ruling...they can ask for testimony to be read back to them but the questioning part is over. The jury...which is the Senate in this case...is there to do one thing and one thing alone...rule on the evidence or lack thereof...that's been presented by the House!

This Senate is only there to cover for Trump.

That's the Republicans job in this effort. To defend their President, and they will. Just like the D's defended the sad excuses for President that served under their label

 

[Oldstyle]

Laws broken, abuses of power




Campaign finance laws on foreign gvt help.

Bribery/extortion, govt corruption.... soliciting help from Velensky, to make an announcement on CNN that the Ukraine was opening an investigation in to the Biden's, in order for the Ukraine to get their congressionally passed military aid, and a coveted white house meeting.... quid pro quo.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - holding back the military aid passed by congress was illegal

Hiding the IG urgent designated whistleblower complaint from congress was illegal.

Refusing to turn over any subpoena documents, breaks the law

Refusing to allow admin witnesses to testify, on this made up "absolute immunity claim" is illegal.

Both, obstruction of congress.

Harassing the whistleblower, illegal

Sending Giuliani and thugs, to the Ukraine is also problematic


All above need witnesses and evidenc

Velensky has repeatedly said that no "quid pro quo" took place! Trump has asserted the same. Do you think the Ukrainian President is a liar?

A US President is wholly within his rights to hold up foreign aid if he suspects that corruption in another nation is a problem. Asking for an investigation into something that appears to be a blatant example of buying influence over a sitting Vice President by giving a family member a high paying no show job that even the most casual observer can see he really has no qualifications for isn't illegal! Calling asking for an investigation into alleged Democratic improper activity in the last election illegal is an amazing double standard after what the left has done to Trump for the past five YEARS! Your side has been investigating imaginary improper activity between the Trump campaign and Russia non stop for all that time based on the lies that the Clinton campaign BOUGHT and PAID for!

As for your claim that invoking Executive Privilege is now "illegal"! That's something the courts decide...not Congress!

 

[Oldstyle]

Nope not as long as their testimony is not blocked or distorted.

Agree, plus the prosecutors should also have the same time to question them before testifying, on witnesses that have not previously testified....

Though I am not certain it works that way in a real trial.... usually the defense does not get to question the prosecutor's witnesses, until the trial, they can cross examine them there, on the stand, same with defense witnesses, prosecutors cross examine them in the trial.

The questioning in an impeachment is supposed to be done by the House...the Senate then takes what's been shown by the House and rules on it. It's akin to a jury deliberation in an actual trial. You don't get to send additional witnesses into a jury room to affect the ruling...they can ask for testimony to be read back to them but the questioning part is over. The jury...which is the Senate in this case...is there to do one thing and one thing alone...rule on the evidence or lack thereof...that's been presented by the House!

Nope. Every impeachment trial in our history, has had witnesses and evidence presented in the trial.

The jury, does NOT DELIBERATE until all evidence and witnesses are heard, from both sides, and both sides have given their closing arguments....it's the last thing that happens in any trial or impeachment, the jury's deliberation, and their verdict.

Evidence and witnesses are what the HOUSE is supposed to provide, Care! The Senate is supposed to rule on the evidence and the witness testimony that the House provides. No impeachment trial in US history has had new witnesses called to testify in a Senate "do over"! The reason the Pelosi is reluctant to send articles of impeachment to the Senate is that she knows only too well that Democrats didn't come close to PROVING what they've charged Trump with! A President sets foreign policy. A President is well within his rights asking that corruption involving a US politician taking place in a foreign nation asking for foreign aid be investigated before that aid is granted. The "obstruction" charge is laughable and always has been.

Just more of the same Trump Humpin excuse making.

Asking that the exact same process that was used in the Clinton impeachment be used in the Trump impeachment is somehow wrong now? How does that work exactly? The only "excuse making" that's taking place is by Democrats because they KNOW that they don't have impeachable offenses to remove Trump from office and they KNOW that their political "show trial" is doomed to fail in the Senate!

 

[WillowTree]

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....

View attachment 295699

And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

Let Trump call Joe and Hunter Biden. I am all for it.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Ordinarily, when witnesses are called for a trial, the Defense has the right to talk with the witnesses before hand, find out what they are going to say.

Would you have a problem with that?

Nope not as long as their testimony is not blocked or distorted.

Agree, plus the prosecutors should also have the same time to question them before testifying, on witnesses that have not previously testified....

Though I am not certain it works that way in a real trial.... usually the defense does not get to question the prosecutor's witnesses, until the trial, they can cross examine them there, on the stand, same with defense witnesses, prosecutors cross examine them in the trial.

The questioning in an impeachment is supposed to be done by the House...the Senate then takes what's been shown by the House and rules on it. It's akin to a jury deliberation in an actual trial. You don't get to send additional witnesses into a jury room to affect the ruling...they can ask for testimony to be read back to them but the questioning part is over. The jury...which is the Senate in this case...is there to do one thing and one thing alone...rule on the evidence or lack thereof...that's been presented by the House!

This Senate is only there to cover for Trump.

That's the Republicans job in this effort. To defend their President, and they will. Just like the D's defended the sad excuses for President that served under their label

No their job is to serve their country and uphold the law.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....

View attachment 295699

And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

Let Trump call Joe and Hunter Biden. I am all for it.

Yep right along with Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo and Guiliani.

 

[Wapasha]

Meanwhile, you still possess zero evidence that Joe got that job for his son.

Yup, it's just a coincidence that Hunter's daddy is the vice president, and the new, unproven, tiny little firm, Rosemont Seneca, takes off like a rocket in 2010, able to secure meetings with largest and most powerful government-fund leaders in China. In 2013 hunter is scoring a $1.5 billion deal, after riding with daddy on Air Force Two.

It's also another freak coincidence that a year later, no talent Hunter lands a sweet job with Burisma.

Imagine that, the two nations where President Obama appointed Joe Biden as the US point man for US foreign relations, and his lands these sweet deals.

I know, you want proof.... except when Trump is the subject of speculations and knee-jerk assumptions, then speculation and presumption is good enough to impeach a president with.

Nice conjecture.

It's all we have, since none of you people can connect the dots, or even think it looks a bit suspicious when Hunter Biden lands all these multi-million jobs in foreign countries his father has diplomatic oversight of. Even though Hunter has no experience in those industries and doesn't speak the language.

 

[Wapasha]

Laws broken, abuses of power




Campaign finance laws on foreign gvt help.

Bribery/extortion, govt corruption.... soliciting help from Velensky, to make an announcement on CNN that the Ukraine was opening an investigation in to the Biden's, in order for the Ukraine to get their congressionally passed military aid, and a coveted white house meeting.... quid pro quo.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - holding back the military aid passed by congress was illegal

Hiding the IG urgent designated whistleblower complaint from congress was illegal.

Refusing to turn over any subpoena documents, breaks the law

Refusing to allow admin witnesses to testify, on this made up "absolute immunity claim" is illegal.

Both, obstruction of congress.

Harassing the whistleblower, illegal

Sending Giuliani and thugs, to the Ukraine is also problematic


All above need witnesses and evidenc

And we didn't land on the moon, and 9/11 was an inside job, and GW Bush planned the invasion of Iraq from his ranch in Texas, years before he ran for president.

We do not need evidence if we just make speculative assumptions and call them fact evidence.

 

[Wapasha]

Nope. Every impeachment trial in our history, has had witnesses and evidence presented in the trial.

The jury, does NOT DELIBERATE until all evidence and witnesses are heard, from both sides, and both sides have given their closing arguments....it's the last thing that happens in any trial or impeachment, the jury's deliberation, and their verdict.

Except that in the Senate trial, the defendant can call witnesses to defend against the charges made against him by the House.

Especially when the House engages in a partisan inquiry like we just saw, and refuses to allow the President enough time to prepare, refuses requests to call witnesses, and refuses cross examination of witnesses and evidence.

 

[jc456]

It isn't their job? Why do they need to call witnesses? That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation? Hmmmmmm?

 

[jc456]

Laws broken, abuses of power




Campaign finance laws on foreign gvt help.

Bribery/extortion, govt corruption.... soliciting help from Velensky, to make an announcement on CNN that the Ukraine was opening an investigation in to the Biden's, in order for the Ukraine to get their congressionally passed military aid, and a coveted white house meeting.... quid pro quo.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - holding back the military aid passed by congress was illegal

Hiding the IG urgent designated whistleblower complaint from congress was illegal.

Refusing to turn over any subpoena documents, breaks the law

Refusing to allow admin witnesses to testify, on this made up "absolute immunity claim" is illegal.

Both, obstruction of congress.

Harassing the whistleblower, illegal

Sending Giuliani and thugs, to the Ukraine is also problematic


All above need witnesses and evidenc

And we didn't land on the moon, and 9/11 was an inside job, and GW Bush planned the invasion of Iraq from his ranch in Texas, years before he ran for president.

We do not need evidence if we just make speculative assumptions and call them fact evidence.

we have to pass the bill to learn what's in the bill!

 

[Superbadbrutha]

It isn't their job? Why do they need to call witnesses? That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation? Hmmmmmm?

They did, the ones whom they needed didn't comply or were told not to. Now what?