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

[Polishprince]

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?

There is a legal dispute as to whether they have to comply with the Witch Hunt.

Traditionally,that means they battle it out in the courts to determine their responsibilities.

 

[Wapasha]

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

Nah, just speculate on what you think is in the bill, and assume it as fact.

 

[Wapasha]

There is a legal dispute as to whether they have to comply with the Witch Hunt.

Traditionally,that means they battle it out in the courts to determine their responsibilities.

It's only common sense, just because the House starts an impeachment inquiry does not mean the president is suddenly subservient to the whims of the Speaker and her appointed lackeys

They keep telling us that impeachment is political. Which means their is no legal basis for the president to help the opposition party in control of the House to impeach him. Especially if the president feels their subpoenas are overreaching House authority, and undermining the separations of power with the executive branch.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

House calls witnesses.

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?

 

[Faun]

House calls witnesses.

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?

The Senate is more than just a jury.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

House calls witnesses.

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?

The Senate is more than just a jury.

Per Alan Dershowitz, you are incorrect. They look at the evidence on why the impeachment happened and decide if a conviction is warranted. Since this is all political theater the point is moot but if Trump say overly said "No missiles if you don't make up lies about Biden and slander him so I can win reelection easier" then the impeachment would have certainly been justified and Pelosi & Co., would have subpoenaed more witnesses. But since the impeachment was based on opinion and political motivations, it was rushed to impact the 2020 election and will likely be tossed out by the GOP dominant Senate.

 

[Faun]

House calls witnesses.

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?

The Senate is more than just a jury.

Per Alan Dershowitz, you are incorrect. They look at the evidence on why the impeachment happened and decide if a conviction is warranted. Since this is all political theater the point is moot but if Trump say overly said "No missiles if you don't make up lies about Biden and slander him so I can win reelection easier" then the impeachment would have certainly been justified and Pelosi & Co., would have subpoenaed more witnesses. But since the impeachment was based on opinion and political motivations, it was rushed to impact the 2020 election and will likely be tossed out by the GOP dominant Senate.

They also question witnesses. Jurors do that?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

House calls witnesses.

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?

The Senate is more than just a jury.

Per Alan Dershowitz, you are incorrect. They look at the evidence on why the impeachment happened and decide if a conviction is warranted. Since this is all political theater the point is moot but if Trump say overly said "No missiles if you don't make up lies about Biden and slander him so I can win reelection easier" then the impeachment would have certainly been justified and Pelosi & Co., would have subpoenaed more witnesses. But since the impeachment was based on opinion and political motivations, it was rushed to impact the 2020 election and will likely be tossed out by the GOP dominant Senate.

They also question witnesses. Jurors do that?

They can (Senate) but do not have to and sometimes Jurors may ask questions.

 

[jc456]

House calls witnesses.

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?

The Senate is more than just a jury.

Per Alan Dershowitz, you are incorrect. They look at the evidence on why the impeachment happened and decide if a conviction is warranted. Since this is all political theater the point is moot but if Trump say overly said "No missiles if you don't make up lies about Biden and slander him so I can win reelection easier" then the impeachment would have certainly been justified and Pelosi & Co., would have subpoenaed more witnesses. But since the impeachment was based on opinion and political motivations, it was rushed to impact the 2020 election and will likely be tossed out by the GOP dominant Senate.

They also question witnesses. Jurors do that?

They can (Senate) but do not have to and sometimes Jurors may ask questions.

but usually it is witnesses that have already testified the juries look for clarification from. they don't request new witnesses to help them.

It is quite telling that our politicians don't even know our constitution.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

House calls witnesses.

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?

The Senate is more than just a jury.

Per Alan Dershowitz, you are incorrect. They look at the evidence on why the impeachment happened and decide if a conviction is warranted. Since this is all political theater the point is moot but if Trump say overly said "No missiles if you don't make up lies about Biden and slander him so I can win reelection easier" then the impeachment would have certainly been justified and Pelosi & Co., would have subpoenaed more witnesses. But since the impeachment was based on opinion and political motivations, it was rushed to impact the 2020 election and will likely be tossed out by the GOP dominant Senate.

They also question witnesses. Jurors do that?

They can (Senate) but do not have to and sometimes Jurors may ask questions.

but usually it is witnesses that have already testified the juries look for clarification from. they don't request new witnesses to help them.

It is quite telling that our politicians don't even know our constitution.

Correct! BINGO!

 

[Faun]

House calls witnesses.

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?

The Senate is more than just a jury.

Per Alan Dershowitz, you are incorrect. They look at the evidence on why the impeachment happened and decide if a conviction is warranted. Since this is all political theater the point is moot but if Trump say overly said "No missiles if you don't make up lies about Biden and slander him so I can win reelection easier" then the impeachment would have certainly been justified and Pelosi & Co., would have subpoenaed more witnesses. But since the impeachment was based on opinion and political motivations, it was rushed to impact the 2020 election and will likely be tossed out by the GOP dominant Senate.

They also question witnesses. Jurors do that?

They can (Senate) but do not have to and sometimes Jurors may ask questions.

Not in federal cases, they can't. Not in most states either.

Also, unlike an impeachment trial in the Senate, the jury can't overrule the judge.

The Senate is more than just a jury in this trial.

 

[Faun]

House calls witnesses.

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?

The Senate is more than just a jury.

Per Alan Dershowitz, you are incorrect. They look at the evidence on why the impeachment happened and decide if a conviction is warranted. Since this is all political theater the point is moot but if Trump say overly said "No missiles if you don't make up lies about Biden and slander him so I can win reelection easier" then the impeachment would have certainly been justified and Pelosi & Co., would have subpoenaed more witnesses. But since the impeachment was based on opinion and political motivations, it was rushed to impact the 2020 election and will likely be tossed out by the GOP dominant Senate.

They also question witnesses. Jurors do that?

They can (Senate) but do not have to and sometimes Jurors may ask questions.

but usually it is witnesses that have already testified the juries look for clarification from. they don't request new witnesses to help them.

It is quite telling that our politicians don't even know our constitution.

The witnesses testify in front of the jury. Prosecutors (House managers in this case) call witnesses.

 

[Polishprince]

The Senate is more than just a jury.

Per Alan Dershowitz, you are incorrect. They look at the evidence on why the impeachment happened and decide if a conviction is warranted. Since this is all political theater the point is moot but if Trump say overly said "No missiles if you don't make up lies about Biden and slander him so I can win reelection easier" then the impeachment would have certainly been justified and Pelosi & Co., would have subpoenaed more witnesses. But since the impeachment was based on opinion and political motivations, it was rushed to impact the 2020 election and will likely be tossed out by the GOP dominant Senate.

They also question witnesses. Jurors do that?

They can (Senate) but do not have to and sometimes Jurors may ask questions.

but usually it is witnesses that have already testified the juries look for clarification from. they don't request new witnesses to help them.

It is quite telling that our politicians don't even know our constitution.

The witnesses testify in front of the jury. Prosecutors (House managers in this case) call witnesses.

I've never heard of a case where the prosecutors don't have a clue as to what a witness will testify to, or even have a clue as to whether the supposed witness even witnessed anything.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

House calls witnesses.

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?

The Senate is more than just a jury.

Per Alan Dershowitz, you are incorrect. They look at the evidence on why the impeachment happened and decide if a conviction is warranted. Since this is all political theater the point is moot but if Trump say overly said "No missiles if you don't make up lies about Biden and slander him so I can win reelection easier" then the impeachment would have certainly been justified and Pelosi & Co., would have subpoenaed more witnesses. But since the impeachment was based on opinion and political motivations, it was rushed to impact the 2020 election and will likely be tossed out by the GOP dominant Senate.

They also question witnesses. Jurors do that?

They can (Senate) but do not have to and sometimes Jurors may ask questions.

Not in federal cases, they can't. Not in most states either.

Also, unlike an impeachment trial in the Senate, the jury can't overrule the judge.

The Senate is more than just a jury in this trial.

Take it up with Alan Dershowitz. I am parroting what he said.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

If you want to call members of the President's Staff...then you should have waited for the Courts to rule on Executive Privilege, Super! That's not settled. Instead of waiting...Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff rammed through impeachment based on second and third hand accounts. If this were a case being heard by a judge in a criminal court it would tossed with a stern admonition from said judge not to waste the court's time if you didn't have real evidence of a crime!

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

It's not that they "needed" testimony from Trump's Staff...it's that the testimony they got from the rest of their so called witnesses was SO bad that they're pretending people like Bolton is going to give them something they couldn't find on their own!

If you ever DO get Bolton or the others to testify, my guess is that they don't give you what you want. What then?

 

[Care4all]

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!

You know that right wing mantra is ALL A LIE and completely taken out of context, of what she fully said, don't you?

 

[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!

You know that right wing mantra is ALL A LIE and completely taken out of context, of what she fully said, don't you?

how so?

 

[WillowTree]

X

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!

You know that right wing mantra is ALL A LIE and completely taken out of context, of what she fully said, don't you?

put it in context then. We’re all ears.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 23864560, member: 31215"]

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.

If you want to call members of the President's Staff...then you should have waited for the Courts to rule on Executive Privilege, Super! That's not settled. Instead of waiting...Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff rammed through impeachment based on second and third hand accounts. If this were a case being heard by a judge in a criminal court it would tossed with a stern admonition from said judge not to waste the court's time if you didn't have real evidence of a crime![/QUOTE]

^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^