A Trial Without Witnesses

a reply to: shooterbrody

No. Because the truth isn't allowed out. The direct witnesses are forbidden from speaking. The documents aren't allowed out.

a reply to: Admitted

No.

thanks for your honesty!




no one was "forbidden"
the house in its attempt to impeach at warp speed screwed the pooch
dont hate the player, hate the game

trump wins again!

a reply to: Sillyolme

They add witnesses during a trial all the time.

were this an actual judicial or criminal trial you may be right
this is not
as you know
so once again you are wrong

typical

a reply to: carewemust

Because the articles had already been written and voted on.
Can you imagine the outrage of they had attempted to make changes???

So now we deal with the outrage that they didn't make changes.
Rock meet hard place. Lose lose.

Two elections from now the country with the best hacking will be deciding who runs our country and will make sure it's in their own best interest.
Talk about inviting some kind of one world government into the picture.
If it's okay today it will open the door for more aggressive infiltration into our elective process in the future.

I don't hold out any hope that witnesses will change the outcome here but if they are heard from they will have an effect in November.

a reply to: shooterbrody

trump wins again!

Sure. Everything is OK, corruption is cool cuz Byeden. Draining the swamp with a flood like a pro!



Geez. I'm really looking forward to the next day with Trumps legal defense high on Bolivian Marching Powder. Did anyone else catch that as well? Kinda fitting, innit?

Coffee flavored milk isn't just a neat loophole to swallow down candy with your favorite morning drug during the hearings, it's a representation of idiocracy in a cup.

a reply to: Sillyolme

That's fair.

Ahhh the Mantra of the House Impeachment Case.

Now they clamor for fairness.

What goes around, comes around.

Should have thought about fairness before they started this. I don't feel bad for the Dems at all. They did all of this. It's Amazing they would destroy their party's chances just before an election.

Thanks Democrats. I owe you one. Now go back to screwing Bernie. He won't fight back against you again.

a reply to: shooterbrody

None of that stops the senate from calling witnesses if they want.

They have the authority to do so.

They are choosing not to. Which in my opinion is the same as telling me I don't need to hear it.

Your ok with that I am not.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Sure. Everything is OK

nope
never said that
I think everything is pretty far from ok
doesn't change the fact that trump wins again
sorry you don't like that and picked that to comment on

hard to drain a swamp when under constant investigation, no?

Geez. I'm really looking forward to the next day with Trumps legal defense high on Bolivian Marching Powder. Did anyone else catch that as well? Kinda fitting, innit?

that just your opinion or you have some sort of evidence of this?
thanks in advance!

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: shooterbrody

None of that stops the senate from calling witnesses if they want.

They have the authority to do so.

They are choosing not to. Which in my opinion is the same as telling me I don't need to hear it.

Your ok with that I am not.

actually the senate doing the job of the house would be unconstitutional, would it not?
you know as the house was supposed to investigate to find reason to bring articles and such?
or do I have that wrong?
the house doesnt get to vote to remove does it?

a reply to: shooterbrody

hard to drain a swamp when under constant investigation, no?

Yeah. Nobody saw that coming, plus it's totes unexpected in that line of work.

that just your opinion or you have some sort of evidence of this?
thanks in advance!

I'll file that under "nope" and "a hard no" (keep the pun). You're out, thanks for playing. Next!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yeah. Nobody saw that coming

au contraire mon frere crossfire hurricane based on illegal fisa warrants and all

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

If that as the case why did house gop members get to question them during depositions and hearings? Why are the House manegers and senate democrats pushing for BOTH SIDES to be able to have witnesses while the GOP pushing for NO witnesses at all?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

They add witnesses during a trial all the time.

were this an actual judicial or criminal trial you may be right
this is not
as you know
so once again you are wrong

typical

See how this works ... it's not a trial when it's inconvenient for it to be one. You know when complaints like due process denial hit your argument hard and stuff. Then, it's a political process, not a legal one.

But ... as soon as you need it to be a legal trial process, then suddenly, that's what it becomes.

That's how it all works.

originally posted by: Pyle
Why are the House manegers and senate democrats pushing for BOTH SIDES to be able to have witnesses while the GOP pushing for NO witnesses at all?

They aren't. Democrats rejected an offer for both sides to have witnesses.

Schumer shoots down GOP proposal to swap Bolton-for-Biden testimony trade

thehill.com...

Democrats on Tuesday sharply criticized a plan suggested by Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) that would effectively involve a witness trade in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, giving each party the chance to call one witness.

www.inquirer.com...

So how do you not know this?

[...]
They say there are no witnesses—even as they stonewall witnesses—and that if there were credible evidence, they might remove Trump. When witnesses and credible evidence emerge, they retort, even so, there has been no crime—and even if there has been a crime, there is no obligation to remove Trump. When crimes are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they argue that Trump’s targets deserved scrutiny, and therefore the crime was justified.

It is enough to confuse us all. Which is precisely the point. Trump’s fervent defenders are assuming that by sheer force of will and sanctimonious protests against a legitimate constitutional process, they will wear down the American people, who may only hear each argument in isolation. Taken as a whole, the Republican defense of Trump is so illogical, it is insulting to the public.

While the GOP may indeed preserve Trump’s tenure through their death grip on a slim Senate majority, history books will not be kind to the deceit they have displayed and the fools they have made of themselves.

Trump's Impeachment Defense Is Incoherent by Design

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
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?

An alternative way to look at this would be to say that in order to get away from hearsay you could call witnesses who were actually there. Why not just put Trump on the stand and have him give his account in person, as he was there its not hearsay.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

If that as the case why did house gop members get to question them during depositions and hearings? Why are the House manegers and senate democrats pushing for BOTH SIDES to be able to have witnesses while the GOP pushing for NO witnesses at all?

My concern is that without witnesses history will see this as a sham trial.

It's one thing for trump to win, but he needs to be seen to have won in a clear and transparent way otherwise he will be declared guilty the very next time a democrat gets into office. There has to be no room for doubt no procedural loopholes, nothing that can be taken out of context.

Bring witnesses in and hear what they have to say, if there is no merit to it then history will say justice was done.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

If that as the case why did house gop members get to question them during depositions and hearings? Why are the House manegers and senate democrats pushing for BOTH SIDES to be able to have witnesses while the GOP pushing for NO witnesses at all?

My concern is that without witnesses history will see this as a sham trial.

It's one thing for trump to win, but he needs to be seen to have won in a clear and transparent way otherwise he will be declared guilty the very next time a democrat gets into office. There has to be no room for doubt no procedural loopholes, nothing that can be taken out of context.

Bring witnesses in and hear what they have to say, if there is no merit to it then history will say justice was done.

The rules are clear.
The Senate votes and unless they remove the President, he is acquitted.
No amount of left wing spin is going to turn that into 'a sham'. Calling it a sham is calling the Constitution a sham.

As far as the Senate trial is concerned, history has already been written. It shows clearly that the Democrats brought an unprepared, entirely partisan impeachment proceeding to the Senate based on nothing at all in the Constitution.
That is the real sham.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Why are the House manegers and senate democrats pushing for BOTH SIDES to be able to have witnesses ...

It's a shame they did no such thing in their impeachment hearings.
Perhaps they should have been fair then, because they may have avoided the utter shambles they brought to the Senate.

Amazing that Democrats can act in an entirely partisan way and then cry about fairness. Sickening.

a reply to: UKTruth

You got that right. History books will matter. What Nancy Pelosi Democrats and the mainstream media say will mean nothing going forward over the long run.