Impeachment Witnesses

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

why were these witnesses not called before the vote

They, and a bunch of documents, were subpoenaed, but Trump ordered his staff to ignore the subpoenas. That's why Trump has been impeached for obstruction of Congress.

That's not obstruction of congress, it's called executive privilege, and Obama/Holder did the same exact thing.

The remedy to that is to file a lawsuit, and the courts decide, as has been done many times before.

Precedent matters in the law.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I can't think of a single reason the House would do this if the impeachment is not simply a political weapon without any actual merit. Thus, this thread, I am wondering if anyone can make sense of it, I can't.

So they'd have another way to try to make Trump look bad by being able to blast "Trump got impeached!" at every opportunity.

a reply to: Mach2

Knowledge if how our system works is not the strong suit if the left. Its hard to hear facts and logic in am echo chamber.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So she can call him an 'impeached' president and raise money and lose again...

a reply to: Mach2

That's not obstruction of congress, it's called executive privilege, and Obama/Holder did the same exact thing.

Yeah, Obama's administration acknowledged Congress' right to subpoena, but cited executive privilege as to the content. Trump and his administration refused to acknowledge Congress' right to subpoena, ignored the subpoenas while the president claims a made up status of "absolute immunity" for him and all of his staffers and aides.

Because Trump refused to acknowledge Congress' authority, and refused to acknowledge their subpoenas, he ws impeached for obstruction of Congress.

a reply to: pavil

Then the House should have waited for the Courts.

"The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment". The courts have on authority over impeachment.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump and his administration refused to acknowledge Congress' right to subpoena, ignored the subpoenas while the president claims a made up status of "absolute immunity" for him and all of his staffers and aides.

Since it is a dispute between branches of government, it is the job of the SCOTUS to make a decision.
If the Democrats in the House rushed the process and voted without going to the SCOTUS, it is no ones fault but their own.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Because these alleged 'witnesses' don't exist,

They exist. The Democrats have asked that the Senate call 4 key witnesses, who ignored their subpoenas.

Those witnesses are acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, Mulvaney’s senior advisor Robert Blair, and Associate Director for National Security at the Office of Management and Budget Michael Duffey. They’re all current or former members of President Donald Trump’s administration who have direct knowledge of his discussions with Ukraine about political investigations and military aid. All four were called to testify as part of the House inquiry, though they declined to show up.

dnyuz.com...

So why the rush to vote in House, then? They could have called upon the judicial branch to enforce their subpoenas and thus would have properly vetted these witnesses. They obviously did not feel these witnesses were all that important since they voted to impeach Trump yesterday, right? If they were not important enough yesterday, they should not be important today.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Mach2

That's not obstruction of congress, it's called executive privilege, and Obama/Holder did the same exact thing.

Yeah, Obama's administration acknowledged Congress' right to subpoena, but cited executive privilege as to the content. Trump and his administration refused to acknowledge Congress' right to subpoena, ignored the subpoenas while the president claims a made up status of "absolute immunity" for him and all of his staffers and aides.

Because Trump refused to acknowledge Congress' authority, and refused to acknowledge their subpoenas, he ws impeached for obstruction of Congress.

Nonsense, show me any law, case law or otherwise, that supports that statement. You can't just make things up, as a matter of opinion.

Recognition of authority has no bearing on the legal system, when it comes to guilt, or innocence.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do try to read. The House voted and Impeached. They can't whine about wanting more witnesses or evidence in the Senate. That's not the Senate's Job.

If they wanted witnesses in the record , they should have waited for the Supreme Courts ruling on Executive Privilege. They didn't even Supeona Bolton, which they could have and he could have testified. The Dems chose not to. He could have testified like other Trump appointees had.

The Dems wanted to act fast, they reap the rewards of such actions.

a reply to: Mach2

I made nothing up. Impeachment isn't a judicial event, it's the purview of Congress and the House of Representatives. It doesn't involve the Judicial Branch and the Judicial Branch has no authority in matters of impeachment.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Will you ever hold the Democrats responsible for their own Actions?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump appealed to the Courts on the requests from the House.

Is that not legal anymore?

Don't Blame Trump for the Democrats decision to impeach without all evidence.

Probably because the witness have no first hand knowledge, meaning they are just parroting hearsay or opinions of others.

This whole impeachment thing is nothing but a sham. It is a disgrace to our judicial system. I have lost faith in our judicial system now for not stepping in and making the Democrats follow the law in this case.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Mach2

I made nothing up. Impeachment isn't a judicial event, it's the purview of Congress and the House of Representatives. It doesn't involve the Judicial Branch and the Judicial Branch has no authority in matters of impeachment.

The Judicial Branch has authority over disputes between the branches of government, which is exactly what took place when Trump refused to allow certain Executive Branch people to testify before the Legislative Branch.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Mach2

I made nothing up. Impeachment isn't a judicial event, it's the purview of Congress and the House of Representatives. It doesn't involve the Judicial Branch and the Judicial Branch has no authority in matters of impeachment.

There are rules governing the use of impeachment, the Democrats tossed out the rules set up by those who created and developed it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Mach2

I made nothing up. Impeachment isn't a judicial event, it's the purview of Congress and the House of Representatives. It doesn't involve the Judicial Branch and the Judicial Branch has no authority in matters of impeachment.

You did. I'll ask again. Show me a law, or Constitutional requirements, that support your statement about "recognizing sunpeonas.

While you are correct that the judicial branch has no say in the house precedings directly, they most definitely have the final say on whether privilege applies. There is no valid argument otherwise.

Impeachment is just a fancy word for indictment. You can indict anyone, for anything you want, but if it isn't a legally sound premise, you will get laughed out of court. Which in this case is the senate, where the chief justice presides.

To say it does not involve the judiciary, just shows you dont understand the process, or the Constitution.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

why were these witnesses not called before the vote

They, and a bunch of documents, were subpoenaed, but Trump ordered his staff to ignore the subpoenas. That's why Trump has been impeached for obstruction of Congress.

Exactly this.

Witnesses, and documents, thought to be necessary to the House inquiry were demanded, but those demands have gone unheeded by the Administration.

Whether that refusal is, in fact, legally supported has yet to be determined.

Nevertheless, neither of the two articles of impeachment issued by the House are, in and of themselves, dependent upon the requested documents and testimony.

That information, it is believed, would serve to support, and amplify, the evidence already provided by the documents which were available, and by the testimony provided by the witnesses who were allowed the appear.


Now, I am wondering.

One of the articles of impeachment passed by the House accused the President of “Obstruction of Congress”, presumably based on the President’s refusal to allow certain individuals, who had been placed under subpoena, to testify before the House.

As previously stated, whether the President had the legal authority to take such action is yet to be decided by the court; it is likely a matter serious enough to rise to the level of the Supreme Court, as a matter of fact.

Now, here things could take an interesting turn.

During the House inquiry portion of the impeachment process, Republicans decried the fact that they were not allowed to call certain witnesses to testify before the committee(s), in large part because the Democratic majority in the House controlled the procedural rules of those committees.

However, the current Senate is controlled by the Republican Party, and it is they who will set the procedural rules for the “Trial” portion of the impeachment process to come.

It is therefore within the purview of Senate Republicans to include, within those trial procedures, the ability to summon witnesses to testify.

What happens if/when a witness, summoned, or even, subpoenaed, by Senate Republicans, refuses to obey the summons?

Since the Senate majority leader has already stated that the defense of the President in the trial portion of the impeachment will be coordinated with the White House, one must conclude that the Leader concurs with the President’s decision to ignore the subpoenas issued by the House.

Therefore, the Leader would, it seems, be hard-pressed to justify any attempt to enforce any summons or subpoena the Senate might issue.

Further, the previously discussed subpoenas issued by the House are yet to be decided by the court. If the court determines that the subpoenas are valid and must be honored, the Administration’s original refusal to do so would be seen as an attempt to obstruct the Congress, as alleged in the articles of impeachment, and providing additional corroboration for that allegation.

If the court, on the other hand, supports the Administration’s position, abrogating the power of the House to subpoena witnesses the Office of the President wishes to shield,

How then can the court enforce the subpoena power of the Senate, which is also a house of Congress?

Very interesting!

a reply to: pavil

That's not the Senate's Job.

It's the Senate's job to hold a fair trial. in 1999 Mc Connell said: "It's not unusual to have a witness in a trial. It's certainly not unusual to have witnesses in an impeachment trial", when Republicans requested 3 witnesses at Clinton's impeachment trial. secondnexus.com...

Republican Susan Collins wanted witnesses at Clinton's impeachment trial too.

“I am willing to travel the road wherever it leads, whether it’s to the conviction or the acquittal of the president,” Collins said. “But in order to do that, I need more evidence. I need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination, to get to the truth.

There is indeed a mountain of evidence. But there is also a record that is replete with conflicting statements, with significant gaps, and with unanswered questions. We need to answer those questions in order to fulfill our duty to do impartial justice. I want to be fair to the president, I want to give him the opportunity to have his lawyers question witnesses if, in fact, we get to that stage.”
www.alternet.org...

Personally, I don't care if Mick Mulvaney testifies. We already have him telling the press at the White House that Trump ordered the Ukraine aid to be held back until they opened an investigation into the Bidens. We have President Trump telling the press on the White House lawn that he wanted Zelinskiy to open an investigation into the Bidens, as a result of his phone call. We have the transcript, where Trump asks Zelenskiy to look into Joe ad Hunter Biden. We have Sondland's testimony that he told Ukraine officials that they needed to announce that they opened a investigation into the Bidens on TV if they wanted to get that money.

We have Fiona Hill's testimony, who was in the room when the Ukrainian officials were informed of a quid pro quo, that John Bolton wanted no part of "Mulvaney and Giuliani's drug deal."

We have Trump saying "Russia! If you're listening"...please hack Hillary's emails, and we have him telling George Stephanopoulos that FBI head Wray is wrong, and that he would accept help from a foreign government for his personal reelection.

If Trump has exculpatory evidence, that he didn't coerce Zelenskiy to open an investigation into the Bidens and that he didn't hold the aid up as incentive, then he should be able to have witnesses testify to that at his trial.

If there are no witnesses, then we have to go with what we have, that makes Trump look guilty as sin.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Mach2

I made nothing up. Impeachment isn't a judicial event, it's the purview of Congress and the House of Representatives. It doesn't involve the Judicial Branch and the Judicial Branch has no authority in matters of impeachment.

There are rules governing the use of impeachment, the Democrats tossed out the rules set up by those who created and developed it.

Actually, and I am surprised everyone keeps (conveniently?) forgetting this;

The Democrats used the rules of impeachment set forth by the Republicans to impeach Clinton.

Talk about being “hoist(ed) by your own petard”!