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.

Ugh. I wish people would stop saying this. They weren't ignored, they were appealed. You know, through that other co-equal branch of government, the Judiciary?

www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: tanstaafl

There is zero evidence that he is doing that

All the evidence points to that.

No, he didn't. He said that 'quid pro quos happen all the time, get over it'. And he is right.

“He also mentioned to me in the past that the corruption related to the DNC server – absolutely, no question about that”, a confident Mulvaney declared.

“That’s it, that’s why we held up the money”, Mick flatly stated, throwing up his hands for effect.

Stunned, a reporter asked for clarification: “So — so — so the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he decided to withhold funding to the Ukraine?”

“The — the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about”, Mick said. “And that is absolutely appropriate”.

heisenbergreport.com...

Prove it. Let me save you some time. He said nothing of the sort.

Trump interview: Election commission issues warning after president admits he would take information on rivals from foreign powers www.msn.com... m-foreign-powers/ar-AACQuSn

They were illegitimate. Congress' answer to him...

Wrong.

a reply to: Zelun

Your source doesn't say the subpoenas were "repealed". It says the judge wants to know, since Trump has been impeached, if MCGahn is still a person of interest in their impeachment inquiry, and if they still want/need a ruling.

The same day the House impeached President Donald Trump, a federal appeals court asked whether the House Judiciary Committee still needs to hear from former White House counsel Don McGahn as part of its impeachment inquiry.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If we have witnesses vital to impeachment, and it is in the House where discovery is made, why were these witnesses not called before the vote?

The White House blocked them from appearing.

Can anyone explain why the Democrats took a vote if they believe there are vital witnesses that still need to testify?

They had evidence from the witness who did appear, but the blocked witnesses would have offered even more evidence, which is why they were ultimately blocked from appearing.

That said, they can still be witnesses in the trial, if allowed.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The witnesses were the ones that trump told not to appear.
Mick Mulvaney
Mike Pompeo
John Bolton
Possibly Rudy Giuliani.
Now here's the thing. The rules for the senate include a rule that says if a member of the senate calls for any changes in procedure or rules the senate must take a vote on it immediately without debate.
Chuck Schumer will call the above witnesses and the senate has to take a vote on them right away.
Are they going to get up in front of the american people and admit they do not want to call witnesses who actually witnessed the behavior trump has been impeached for?
Its a little rule that is going to level the playing field.

a reply to: Sillyolme

There is an interesting article on that here: www.rawstory.com...

Some people are saying that Justice Roberts holds more cards than Mitch McConnell.

a reply to: butcherguy

Mike Pompeo was a witness to the call.
John Bolton was a witness to the formation of the plot to get dirt on Biden, or actually just to get an announcement about an investigation, not really an investigation, just something trump could point to and say see see seeeeeeeeee.
but I digress, these guys have a story to tell.
Or perhaps just keep everybody in the dark and every bit of evidence, of that perfect call and everything else they hide and keep secretly filed away in top secret computer locked away. No one needs to know what really went on or anything like that. Right?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They were called.
They were subpoenaed when they didn't respond.
They ignored the subpoenas.
What can ya do?

a reply to: Sillyolme

There was nothing stopping Bolton from testifying just as Sonderland and 3 NSC staff did. He could have ignored the Trump order, numerous officials did.

link

He even said if he were Supeonaed, he would show. The Dems didn't even do a Supeona.

Who's fault is that?

Russia. It's Russia's fault.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Sillyolme

There is an interesting article on that here: www.rawstory.com...

Some people are saying that Justice Roberts holds more cards than Mitch McConnell.

This specifically speaks to the rule I was talking about.
In this case they use an objection to a decision by chief justice Roberts but it is applicable to any motion set forth by a senator.

Slate notes that the rules explicitly grant “any member of the Senate” the right to object to Roberts’ evidentiary decisions, and if the chief justice stands firm in his opinion, a senator may demand “a vote of the Members of the Senate” on “any such question”—with a simple majority sufficient to overturn Roberts’ ruling.

a reply to: pavil

A rush to impeach by any means necessary.

And NOW with Nancy slowing the procedure down, you want to speed things up by demanding she turn over the articles?
Geez guys make up your minds.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Zelun

Your source doesn't say the subpoenas were "repealed". It says the judge wants to know, since Trump has been impeached, if MCGahn is still a person of interest in their impeachment inquiry, and if they still want/need a ruling.

The same day the House impeached President Donald Trump, a federal appeals court asked whether the House Judiciary Committee still needs to hear from former White House counsel Don McGahn as part of its impeachment inquiry.

But the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asked Wednesday whether McGahn's case was still worth pursuing. A three-judge panel is set to hear the case Jan. 3. After the House voted Wednesday to impeach Trump for accusations of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the appeals court asked whether the McGahn case needs expedited treatment and whether it needs to be decided at all.

Appealed, not repealed. That's what a Court of Appeals does: it considers appeals.

a reply to: pavil

He even said if he were Supeonaed, he would show.

No he didn't. He said that if he was subpoenaed he would take it to court.

Bolton to Take House Committees to Court if They Subpoena Him sputniknews.com...

A US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee official stated that President Donald Trump's former National Security Adviser John Bolton has threatened to take the committee to court if it subpoenas him to testify in the impeachment probe.

a reply to: Zelun

Right. Twice the courts ruled in favor of the Democrats subpoenas. Trump is taking it to SCOTUS.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Zelun

Right. Twice the courts ruled in favor of the Democrats subpoenas. Trump is taking it to SCOTUS.

Is that allowed?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Zelun

Right. Twice the courts ruled in favor of the Democrats subpoenas. Trump is taking it to SCOTUS.

Most transparent president. Ever. Of all time.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Interesting.

So during the Clinton Impeachment trial, and I think I'm remembering this correctly, the Senate passed a rules resolution and a witness list resolution before the trial began. The rules passed unanimously, but the witnesses list was less so. Of course, and again, I'm going off of memory, the Articles of Impeachment had been referred to the Senate before either of those resolutions were voted upon.

So if they want, they can work out the rules separate from the witnesses, but I don't think they can initiate any of this before the Senate receives the Articles. But I could be wrong.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Zelun

Right. Twice the courts ruled in favor of the Democrats subpoenas. Trump is taking it to SCOTUS.

Is that allowed?

That the courts ruled in favor of the Democrats or that Trump is taking it to the SCOTUS?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sputniknews....ok.

House lawmakers reportedly sent letters summoning Bolton....
Washington Post reported, citing sources close to Bolton.......
Bolton has been allegedly asked

Stellar reporting, I'm sure.

Did the House issue him a Supeona?

a reply to: Liquesence

Allowed to appeal to a higher court?