A Trial Without Witnesses

The blame is going to the House of Representatives (the people who represent U.S. citizens) for not subpoening these witnesses. Which could take months to years.

I think that's fair. The House should have done that. But here we are.

The courts are too slow and so, I get why this was done.

There is one problem I see here and it comes from the top.

I know most here love him, but love him or hate him, Trump is on the top. And he is sowing this division. America is a place of diverse opinions. Trump promotes one vision that does not align with the majority. We are in turmoil and IT IS his fault. He is the boss.

We are currently debating on whether to have witnesses at his impeachment trial.

Why on earth would we not have witnesses?

Why?

Because they have negative things to say about the President?

Do we have free speech? Rule of law? I guess not....not anymore.

a reply to: Admitted

The House Presents the case they brought to the Senate.

Sorry if the House were idiots......

a reply to: Admitted

Why on earth would we not have witnesses?

Why?

Because they have negative things to say about the President?

Perhaps due to the fact that, thus far the, 'evidence,' has all been innuendo, hearsay, and subjective interpretation?

The House has not made a substantiated case, why would you want to have witnesses in a case in which the original allegations are baseless?

They had witnesses in the HOuse. And they are hiding the transcripts from one of the witness testimony I wonder why?

a reply to: pavil

They were. They should have brought these witnesses that they could. That the White House didn't block. They should have subpoeaned.

They put it off to the Senate and that was stupid.

But, the senate, should do what they didn't. We need first-hand accounts and they can provide that. That the house didn't do it right, doesn't mean they shouldn't.

I want the whole truth. I want firsthand witnesses. Bring them.

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: pavil

They were. They should have brought these witnesses that they could. That the White House didn't block. They should have subpoeaned.

They put it off to the Senate and that was stupid.

But, the senate, should do what they didn't. We need first-hand accounts and they can provide that. That the house didn't do it right, doesn't mean they shouldn't.

I want the whole truth. I want firsthand witnesses. Bring them.

READ THE TRANSCIPT

a reply to: Admitted

the house utterly failed in its investigations thats on them not the senate,the house is to investigate the senate try with the evidence presented they knew they werent gonna get him removed so it was a partisan hack move by them to try to blame republican senate before 2020.

and they said it was of utmost urgency! he was destroying the rule of law and had to be stopped! then sat on it for 2 weeks before sending it to the senate

www.cnn.com... from cnn not fox or breibart

(CNN)The House Intelligence committee did not issue a subpoena to John Bolton after his attorney threatened to go to court to fight if it was issued, according to a House Intelligence Committee official.

so its not the republicans fault the democratic house is scared of the courts

and its not like the dems are gonna give up their crusade to get rid of trump because he scares the bejesus out of them and they know they cant beat him in 2020 ,too bad malicious prosecution does not apply to repeated impeachment attempts

a reply to: Admitted

The house had their witnesses, and when asked not a single one said that Trump committed a crime. Game over man, game over.

So the House's airtight impeachment case which they already voted guilty of now suddenly needs more witnesses?

So they basically did a garbage job at collecting and presenting evidence?

a reply to: Admitted
This is a PARTISAN POLITICAL process
Dems rule the house
Gop rules the senate

Were it actually a "fair" process these articles would not have been brought

Why expect more from the gop than the dems?

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Why doesn't that apply? It should

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: pavil

They were. They should have brought these witnesses that they could. That the White House didn't block. They should have subpoeaned.

They put it off to the Senate and that was stupid.

But, the senate, should do what they didn't. We need first-hand accounts and they can provide that. That the house didn't do it right, doesn't mean they shouldn't.

I want the whole truth. I want firsthand witnesses. Bring them.

READ THE TRANSCIPT

Jesus I've read and heard that thing so many times...

Why doesn't the Senate want to hear from Bolton? The guy who was there?

twitter.com... here is a twitter link from an interview with bolton calling the talks between trump and Ukraine president as "cordial and friendly"

2.And this is an interview with John Bolton describing the president's conversations w/ the president of Ukraine as warm & cordial in Aug 2019.If he thought at the time that the president was stiff-arming the Ukrainians, he had a funny way of showing it

so i guess if you want comments from bolton here ya go

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Admitted
This is a PARTISAN POLITICAL process
Dems rule the house
Gop rules the senate

Were it actually a "fair" process these articles would not have been brought

Why expect more from the gop than the dems?

No. Had Trump not withheld aid from Ukraine for the purpose of getting an investigation into the son of a political rival these articles would not have been brought.

a reply to: toolgal462

Malicious prosecution and abuse of process apply to legal proceedings. Impeachment, being a political proceeding, does not qualify.

a reply to: Admitted

Because Bolton cannot give any answer that isn't already provided for in the TRANSCRIPT.

THERE WAS NO CRIME.

Why is the senate scared to hear from Bolton?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: toolgal462

Malicious prosecution and abuse of process apply to legal proceedings. Impeachment, being a political proceeding, does not qualify.

Maybe that should be changed after this fiasco.

originally posted by: Admitted
Why is the senate scared to hear from Bolton?

No one is afraid of Bolton, get over yourself

a reply to: Admitted

It is not up to the court (and that's what the Senate is) to aid in either the defense nor the prosecution of the trial.

It is their job to judge the evidence presented by the House Managers.

The House laid out their evidence.

The Senates only job is to determine if the evidence is enough to oust a sitting president.

It is NOT the job of the Senate to look for more evidence to convict or to look for exculpatory evidence.