A Trial Without Witnesses

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: ketsuko

Agreed. It was done wrong.

Thing is...we have a Trial Without Witnesses and it is bogus.

If anyone on the Senate wants to believe themselves doing right and just passing this off...they are criminal. They are not fulfilling their oath.

I stand by thread title (it's my only voice, really). We have a trial without witnesses.

And that is bogus. We have a president on trial and we don't choose to hear any reason why.

But, there's already been a trial. Are you wanting ANOTHER trial? Well then, it needs to go back to the House. You know, where impeachment trials are held.

So, the Senate can acquit, or they can send it back. I think the Senate should send the POS back to the House and let them figure it out.

Has it ever occurred to the left, that its THEM that are being played by their own party?

Maybe they want witnesses, so badly, to keep this thing going for as long as they can keep a few Senators from campaigning? Hmmm?

originally posted by: Admitted
I wish ATS had an option to exit a thread.

I'd rather revert to my music threads right now.

Anyway...

I just want witnesses. I can't understand why the Senate would block firsthand witnesses. The house failed...so...do it right. Someone can do it right, right?

Or is our government completely inept?

Let me change this scenario since you don't seem to understand.

You are hired to do a specific job at work. Your coworker has a specific job to do too. But they decide that they will just sit back and let you do their job and they still can get paid. They don't worry about being fired, because they say it is your fault for not making sure they did their job. On top of it all, they have proof that you have always stepped up in the past, so how could they not believe you would cover for them this time.

They keep blaming you. Not excepting personal responsibility ... They are a victim of circumstances. It would take them longer and you are more experienced and they believe you should do their job too.

For Pete sakes! Stand up for yourself...tell the bugger to do their own job and own up to the fact they are lazy!

The Senate should say enough and set the standard. America should look at the house reps and fire those who refused to actually do the job they were elected too and do it by the processes set to ensure we are not producing China cheap BS products!

originally posted by: Admitted
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.

Nope...As the defenders pointed out that when a subpoena is turned down there are numerous remedies between there and getting the Court involved...The Dems ignored all of those remedies to get Trump impeached before their Christmas vacation...

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: Admitted
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.

Nope...As the defenders pointed out that when a subpoena is turned down there are numerous remedies between there and getting the Court involved...The Dems ignored all of those remedies to get Trump impeached before their Christmas vacation...

Adam Schiff says new evidence has come to light against President Trump "almost daily" since the impeachment articles were approved by the House.

During the 30 days Nancy sat on them, why didn't the House add this new evidence that was coming in "almost daily"?

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Admitted

Do we have Joe Biden, Hunter and Rudy as witnesses as well? What about the 18th Witness the House deposed but didn't include as evidence?

Do both sides get to call all the witnesses they need to present their case?

Democratic senators put amendments to that effect for a vote when the impeachment resolution was being introduced. Under the current GOP rules they couldn’t even call any of the 18 people that have already been deposed let alone new witnesses and Mitch McConnell hand scribbled in at the last min allowing document to be presented pre-trail start because he didn’t want that originally.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Admitted

Do we have Joe Biden, Hunter and Rudy as witnesses as well? What about the 18th Witness the House deposed but didn't include as evidence?

Do both sides get to call all the witnesses they need to present their case?

Democratic senators put amendments to that effect for a vote when the impeachment resolution was being introduced. Under the current GOP rules they couldn’t even call any of the 18 people that have already been deposed let alone new witnesses and Mitch McConnell hand scribbled in at the last min allowing document to be presented pre-trail start because he didn’t want that originally.

Correct. It should have been done in the House if it was needed.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Under current rules they can’t even call the witnesses they deposed already. The no witness thing from the president’s team and GOP senators doesn’t even let those who are already witnesses be brought up to testify and answer questions from the president’s team. This is more then just Bolton and new witnesses they don’t even want question the old ones for some reason after crying about due process which is their chance to have now.

a reply to: toolgal462

If that is indeed the case. Then this should be a pretty quick trial for Trump.

Why worry?

The divison is coming from the left who since day 1 refused to work with the president

It's amazing what trump has accomplished even from the level of opposition he is receiving

I'm from ny and in the last 2 years the Democrats worked on 2 things.

1. Giving illegal aliens driver's licenses
2. Getting rid of the bail system

And these community is pissed off

These 2 new laws have made my community more dangerous and many are trying to change it.

Some real radical ideas and if it's any idea how the Democrats are heading.. some scary times ahead if they are not controlled

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

So does everybody else. The Communist Democrats want Trump out and thought they could railroad him and all the voting public( which they have shown they have nothing but contempt for).

a reply to: Bloodworth

Some real radical ideas and if it's any idea how the Democrats are heading.. some scary times ahead if they are not controlled

The Democrat Party is run by radicals now, remember Pelosi herself is DSA. It’s just the Communist Party is wolfs clothing .

originally posted by: Admitted
If it's so perfect. Lets hear from those that were there.

They already had 3 first hand witnesses who were on the call, you can go back and watch their testimonies over and over since that's all you want.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: toolgal462

If that is indeed the case. Then this should be a pretty quick trial for Trump.

Why worry?

Who is worried? Even Feinstein is saying she is leaning towards acquittal because no evidence has been presented.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Admitted
I wish ATS had an option to exit a thread.

I'd rather revert to my music threads right now.

Anyway...

I just want witnesses. I can't understand why the Senate would block firsthand witnesses. The house failed...so...do it right. Someone can do it right, right?

Or is our government completely inept?

Let me change this scenario since you don't seem to understand.

You are hired to do a specific job at work. Your coworker has a specific job to do too. But they decide that they will just sit back and let you do their job and they still can get paid. They don't worry about being fired, because they say it is your fault for not making sure they did their job. On top of it all, they have proof that you have always stepped up in the past, so how could they not believe you would cover for them this time.

They keep blaming you. Not excepting personal responsibility ... They are a victim of circumstances. It would take them longer and you are more experienced and they believe you should do their job too.

For Pete sakes! Stand up for yourself...tell the bugger to do their own job and own up to the fact they are lazy!

The Senate should say enough and set the standard. America should look at the house reps and fire those who refused to actually do the job they were elected too and do it by the processes set to ensure we are not producing China cheap BS products!

There's 16 pages of posts explaining it to this guy, but his mental deficiency is getting in the way of his understanding. I've actually worked with special needs children and OP is acting exactly them. He just can't and won't understand it. His response will be "muh witnesses", no argument whatsoever just repeating the same word ad nauseam

a reply to: pavil

So let me tell you what is happening with Don McGhan who WAS subpoened.
They get to court and the defense argues that this can't be litigated in a court. That it does not qualify.
So yes tell them they should sue then get to court and tell them they can't sue.

And they can't have witnesses.
What's the name of this movie?

I Don't Want to Know What You Did Last Summer?

Wait wait wait...Don't you love the argument that if he does something to get re-elected and he BELIEVES it's in the best interest of the country he can do it.
Lol. I mean really? How did they not laugh in his face.

How did that lame ass ever win a case.
Remember his last famous client that he proved was innocent. Orenthal James Simpson...
Better known as OJ.
YEAH he was innocent too right?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: pavil

So let me tell you what is happening with Don McGhan who WAS subpoened.
They get to court and the defense argues that this can't be litigated in a court. That it does not qualify.
So yes tell them they should sue then get to court and tell them they can't sue.

And they can't have witnesses.
What's the name of this movie?

I Don't Want to Know What You Did Last Summer?

Schiff was upset that individuals can get FOIA requests quicker. He and many it seems are missing the whole point. There are processes and forms for those requests. If someone doesn't fill it out correctly worded they will not get what they want any quicker either.

The delay is the fault of the requester. They would be advised to correct the request to ensure the documentation process history reflects the precedence of justice. No one will get any documentation from FOIA if they don't even submit the requested form to begin with.

Edit add: personal note on following government form and processes. This past year, I submitted a request to VA to replace my husbands military medals, ribbons, ect that were lost. I received them 5 months later. I did not have an urgent need for them, but if I did, (ex: memorial service) they have an expedited form request and guarantee that they could get them to me in in days.

The House insists this is an urgent matter, I guarantee you that if the urgency request was backed by actual facts of a criminal nature or sincere urgent need, the justice system would have expedited their requests.

A Trial Without a Crime.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Wait wait wait...Don't you love the argument that if he does something to get re-elected and he BELIEVES it's in the best interest of the country he can do it.
Lol. I mean really? How did they not laugh in his face.

How did that lame ass ever win a case.
Remember his last famous client that he proved was innocent. Orenthal James Simpson...
Better known as OJ.
YEAH he was innocent too right?

this will be really funny to read when you dont get your 67 votes to remove

trump beat you
again

enjoy

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Under current rules they can’t even call the witnesses they deposed already. The no witness thing from the president’s team and GOP senators doesn’t even let those who are already witnesses be brought up to testify and answer questions from the president’s team. This is more then just Bolton and new witnesses they don’t even want question the old ones for some reason after crying about due process which is their chance to have now.

Why do they need question the ones who already testified in the House ? We know that was rigged. The Democrats didn’t want any of them questioned by Republican and we all know why.