A Trial Without Witnesses

originally posted by: DBCowboy


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

Exactly!!!
The Senate calling witnesses would be the equivalent of a JURY in a civil trial asking for more witnesses in a case they were being asked to pass judgement on!!!
The House had to prove their case and didn't because there never was anything to this hoax!
No witnesses!!

edit on 30-1-2020 by Bob350 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: shooterbrody

So you would rather be told what to think.

a reply to: ketsuko

You have a chance to hear from bidon and/or hunter now and you don't want to??

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Senate has the authority to call witnesses.

Are you saying you don't want bidon or his son to speak under oath?

originally posted by: Admitted
I'm done. I have no hope of getting a point across here. Find me in music.

Also, who needs evidence for a fair trial?
You guys see a pattern yet?
Conspiracy, anyone?!?

*crickets*.

Okay then, back to the real deal: whatabout... whatabout Bye_den, Obummer and Hitlery?

The real danger out of all this is that Trump knows that he can whatever he wants. I'm not saying he should be convicted or acquitted for just being sloppy on a phone call. The argument Dershowitz made, "Presidents cannot be removed from office for an action they believe could help get them re-elected." Is just insane. That basically gives the President, King power outside of the Constitution because it places his actions above the law. When Trump is acquitted on Friday he will feel as if he can do anything and not receive any consequences what so ever. It's going to make him more reckless and will put the Senate on the hook as enablers. This is not going to end well.

When the Republicans told the Democrats they want the whistleblower as a witness, they laughed and said they dont even Matter now because trump released the transcript.

a reply to: ltheghost
no
when he actually breaks a law there will be consequences
policy differences with bureaucrats do not make an impeachment
lol
funny that trump has to learn the lesson and not the outrageous house democrats

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: shooterbrody

So you would rather be told what to think.

pray tell how is that?
thanks in advance

a reply to: Pyle

The House Managers think that only they will get to call and pick witnesses........doesn't work like that. They will regret having witnesses should it come down to it. Their whole case will fall apart if Team Trump calls the witnesses they want to testify.

We will see what happens.....3 Dems supposedly will vote to dismiss charges.

a reply to: ltheghost

The real danger out of all this is that Trump knows that he can whatever he wants.

Exactly. I remember that one time Trump told the President of Russia that he'd have more flexibility after the election and Russia grabbed Crimeria and that time he gave a planeload of cash to Iran.

Bad Trump.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Without hearing from everyone how can you know what the truth is?

You would have to just believe what mitch and others tell you is the truth.

You don't want bidon or hunter as a witness?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: shooterbrody

Without hearing from everyone how can you know what the truth is?

You would have to just believe what mitch and others tell you is the truth.

You don't want bidon or hunter as a witness?

so it appears you are another that does not understand the process
no worries
the senate is to evaluate what the house brings forward in the articles of impeachment
when the house did not include the witnesses you would like, that does not make it the senates job to do so

as to "the truth", I read the transcript of the call, I read the transcript of the president of ukraine
nothing from either shows any more than a difference of policy between the president and the house of representitives
certainly nothing rising to the level of impeachment imo

the house's case simply lacks imo

the fact that you think that in some way is not thinking for myself is hilarious

pro tip: not everyone will agree with you

p.s.
you do understand this in no way is any sort of actual "judicial or criminal" trial?
this is a purely political process?

a reply to: ltheghost

You didnt understand his argument at all. What he was trying to get across is the president decides foreign policy. And any decision they make will usually benefit them. He used the example of a president deciding not to deploy troops. His pollsters tell him that the American people would be against deploying us forces. So even though it may be a good idea to send troops he decides not to knowing if he does it hurts his reelection campaign.

This act would be self serving but not illegal. As president he has every right to set foreign policy.

a reply to: dragonridr

As president he has every right to set foreign policy.

and that is what the bureaucrats and house dems have an actual issue with

had they brought this difference to the american people via the upcoming election they would have had better results imo

the approach they used will ensure trumps re election and gop majority in both the house and senate imo

a reply to: Admitted

Let me know when the house actually offers up evidence for a "witness" to corroborate or not. So far, the house hasnt offered anything and still expects removal. Hell, neither of the articles even included evidence. It was so empty, the house had to issue a memo trying to explain why they didnt include anything in either article. What a joke.

In the call, ita clear he asks for help looking into 2016 election meddling (you know, the meddling Politico reported on when it happened). Then 4 pages later, at the end of the 30 minute call, he mentions possible Biden corruption.

Also, now we know he was pushing for looking into Ukranian corruption a year BEFORE the call. You all must think POTUS is a GENIUS for having the foresight to do that a year in advance! People like you make normies just lose faith in humanity. Instead you inch closer and closer canibalizing your own side, up to self-destruction.

a reply to: UnendingVigilance

The evidence is in the documents and witnesses the White House has forbade from coming out.

It's all a joke. Our government, wholly, is a joke. The world sees it. Some here don't.

a reply to: pavil

Democrats had 18 witnesses testify.

Allowed ZERO Republican witnesses.

Time for the games to stop. Acquit, then open DOJ investigations into the Schiff-Ciaramella-Vindman scheme.

a reply to: Admitted

The evidence is in the documents and witnesses the White House has forbade from coming out.

anything other than your opinion to corroborate this?
you know, with your "beliefs" and all.....

a reply to: CynConcepts

They add witnesses during a trial all the time.
New evidence comes out during testimony and back up or clarification is needed.
Mostly it's adding forensic type experts but they do add witnesses so let's not go changing the interpretation of the laws to suit a specific purpose.
That's fair.
Thanks