It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Trial Without Witnesses

page: 20
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
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.


Your right.

That's why they're denying Trump his right to face his accuser by disallowing Carmella to be named.




posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

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.

How can that be more relevant than the transcript? We know what was said already.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

A Senate "Trial" is a political process vs a normal Court Trial. Sound the same, but they are different beasts.

Don't act like the Democrats didn't know this going in. You sound like Hillary whining about winning the popular vote.

Know the rules of the game before you play.......



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




actually the senate doing the job of the house would be unconstitutional, would it not?


No, having witnesses in a senate impeachment trial is not unconstitutional.

It wasn't unconstitutional when it happened during clintons trial.



In a 54-44 vote, the Senate passed a resolution approving subpoenas for three people: Sidney Blumenthal, Monica Lewinsky, and Vernon Jordan.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

They could do it. But it is not their job to cater to House Democrats who had the opportunity to do something and chose not to. They have yet to offer any compelling evidence why this should be dragged out longer.

I personally want witnesses. Both sides, get whoever they want.Democrats who want to be campaigning can sit in the Senate while this drags out for the next 1-2 years because the House refused to do things the right way despite having all this time to do it.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Sorry but they cant even bring in those they have already deposed and have had in hearings, why is it the President's team who have cried about due process dont want to depose and cross examin those previous witness? Why do GOP senators not want that either?



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

i dont get a say but our senators do , so if the dems have the votes to call witnesses do it but if not well why blame us? we have no power were randoms on a message board. www.nytimes.com... why did the senate not have lewinski testify in clintons impeachment in open trial?


www.cnn.com... this is almost quite literally a repeat of the clinton impeachment ,partisan house impeachment and the senate being like bwhahahahaha NO f your rules this is the senate not the house

All day, senators worked behind the scenes to try to achieve a consensus how to proceed with the trial, hoping to avoid the kind of partisan split that marked the House's handling of the impeachment matter. Votes were scheduled for Thursday afternoon, but quickly postponed until Friday, on separate, conflicting Republican and Democratic proposals for the scope and shape of the trial. Whether to hear from witnesses remains a key sticking point.
its almost like they think no one payed attention to the clinton sham impeachment (and bill actually committed a crime and lied under oath) hell its even happening in damn near the same months and on the same schedule to end on feb 12 lol then there is this from MR lott who is playing mcconnel in this stage play


The dueling proposals The Republican proposal would send a summons to Clinton, giving him until Tuesday to respond to the perjury and obstruction of justice charges against him. House prosecutors would give opening statements next Thursday. The president would follow shortly after the Martin Luther King holiday. Each side would have up to three days to present its case. The trial would conclude by February 12. Following the opening statements, the senators would determine if witness testimony was needed. "I think it's wrong that you say at the beginning, absolutely no witnesses. I also think it's wrong to say at the beginning there's going to be 'X' number of witnesses," said Lott.
hrrm sounds almost like exactly what the republicans are saying this time word for word what the dems told them funny how that works

oh and what did the white house say during clintons impeachment? you know the thing the media is harping on trump for? here from same source is what the white house had to say

The White House is anxiously awaiting news of how the Senate will proceed. White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart said Thursday it would be "manifestly unfair" for the Senate to conduct the trial without deciding in advance how the proceedings will go forward. "You cannot have a process that's fair to someone involved in that process where the rules get made up as you go," Lockhart said. "I would suggest that that would be a situation, an environment, that is manifestly unfair to the president." The White House also weighed in on the question of witnesses Thursday, saying if witnesses are allowed, the president will ask for discovery and depositions and make motions posing "significant delays" to the proceedings. Lockhart said the White House had offered Wednesday night to "stipulate" to the record used by the House of Representatives in its hearings on the perjury and obstruction of justice allegations against Clinton. But that stipulation was based on an agreement that neither side would call witnesses during the Senate trial.
hrrrm so clinton would only show up if witnesses were not called hrrrm old slick willy may have given trump the script hes using now as hey it worked for old bill why not trump?

one last snippit

Sources say approximately a third of the Republicans favor a full trial with witnesses, while another third favor no witnesses at all. The final third within the Republican caucus remains undecided. One possibility is that the witnesses, if called, could give closed-door depositions, rather than live testimony, to the Senate. Sources said many senators favored depositions to keep the trial from becoming a public spectacle.
here is a key difference this time republicans are united and a few of the dems are the ones pondering acquittal . i mean swap the names and one of the charges and this may as well be the clinton impeachment other then trump has so far managed to not lie under oath , last time the democrats said NO witness perhaps some depositions and the republicans wanted the witnesses perhaps they are just returning the dems favor as we saw trumps defense use the other day playing clips of the democratic teams quotes from the past impeachment?

the main difference between last time and this? the media is fully against president trump but was at least moderately defensive of old bill .and hey at least trump isnt abusing power and banging interns this time

oddly enough conservative press seemed to somewhat even defend bill clinton least as far as witnesses go

www.washingtonpost.com...

His advisers were not so quiescent, lashing out after weeks of deference to the Senate. White House press secretary Joe Lockhart complained that starting arguments without a decision on witnesses would be “manifestly unfair to the president” and warned that allowing witnesses as demanded by House prosecutors would force a lengthy delay.
so last time dems against witnesses as it seems to be the standard playbook for impeachment but because its trump doing it ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!

i know its mostly a wall of text but seriously read the provided links and replace bills name with donald trumps and the comparisons are almost mirror images of the same case with slightly different charges even down to the senators saying the house did not follow proper impeachment procedure

Republicans accused the Democrats of spurning the bipartisan caucus, while Democrats said Lott never directly proposed it to Daschle. That cross-talk led directly to the decision to go forward with a showdown vote. But then that decision was reversed as senators came to recognize that their plans had not been completely drafted and came to fear heading down the same road as the House. The situation was further complicated by the multilateral negotiations, with senators exchanging proposals and counter-proposals with House prosecutors as well as each other. The only thing that was clear was that last week’s hopes of a quick five-day trial have vanished as every viable alternative now envisions at least two weeks of proceedings.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

Nope, the division was done under the Obama administration. It was Obama's DHS while Janet Napolitano was in charge of the DHS which labeled Americans as "possible extremists and possible terrorists for, among other things, wanting to defend the second amendment, disagreeing with ANY of Obama's policy, fearing communism, fearing a one world government, being returning veterans, and in general for holding any conservative views.

It was under the Obama administration, whom worked with the Southern Poverty Law Center, which also labeled conservatives and even "conspiracy theorists" as racists, white supremacists, etc. The SPLC even labeled people like Ron Paul as "right-wing extremists."

It was under the Obama administration through which racist, and violent groups like BLM, Antifa, and many others, became stronger for being far left-wing. Even after a BLM member/sympathizer murdered several police officers in an ambush, Obama made a speech in which he went so far as to not giving the total blame to BLM, but blamed the police.

It was under the Obama administration in which the IRS, and other government agencies were used to target conservative groups.

So you see, you got it wrong. It was under Obama/Biden that the division in the U.S. was made stronger.

As for witnesses?... The House had 17 witnesses... When pressed NONE of them could admit to having heard, or seen, any wrongdoing by President Trump.

The House denied the POTUS his due process, they denied his counsel from being present by falsely claiming "we need to protect the whistleblower..." In the U.S. even the President has a right to face his accusers. But Schiff, Pelosi, et al knew that by claiming "the accuser is a whistleblower" they could keep all the "supposed evidence" secret from the public, and from the majority of Republicans in both the House and the Senate, and Schiff threatened everyone with jail time if they leaked anything... Ironic since left-wingers & never Trumpers have been "leaking" since the first day Trump became POTUS...

Schiff, Pelosi, et al, denied ALL Republican witnesses, they denied the cross-examination of witnesses by the counsel/lawyer of the President. The President was denied to be defended in the House sham. We were told time and again, he will be able to defend himself in the Senate. I stated that it was clear that the "evidence" used in the House would not be seen by the public or by the majority of Senators. That's part of the reason why Schiff claimed the accuser was a "whistleblower", to hide the so called "evidence" and for people not see that the whistleblower was in fact connected to Schiff, Pelosi, Biden, et al.

Now Democrats want to deny the Republican witnesses and still want more witnesses?... They can go to hell...



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

The trial was in the House... Schiff, Pelosi, et al claimed that they had more than enough evidence to convict the President... But in fact they didn't. When pressed the democrat only witnesses had to admit that President Trump didn't commit ANY CRIME... The Senate looks at the evidence provided by the House and votes.

As for "more witnesses" democrats continue not wanting to allow the Republican witnesses, meanwhile demanding more of their witnesses... Democrats, like the authoritarians they are, want to control the Senate like they controlled the House...


edit on 30-1-2020 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Admitted

Eric ciaramella, also known as The Whistleblower, must be called to testify.

Once everything in this article is exposed before the Senate, The house impeachment articles will be nullified.

www.thegatewaypundit.com... ch-more/

Adam Schiff colluded with this guy to get the impeachment fuse lit.



After this is over the DOJ most certainly should call Ciaramella and get this cleared up.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Admitted
We have a president on trial without witnesses being allowed to speak.

This is America today.


Do you really want the answers, as in what the Constitution allows for in an impeachment? Or do want to continue to say "why not?", like a toddler when you try to explain to them that they cannot fly like the birds.



Give me the answer to 2+2, but not 4, I don't want to hear 4, give me a real answer


That reminds me of 1984 the movie that was re released in 1984 starring John Hurt:

The gov goon hovering over the hero in a torture chamber says:
"You see 5 fingers when I hold up 4 now Winston Smith. I want you to see 5. I want you to believe you actually see 5!"
Then he pulls on the rack and painfully stretches John Hurt out in a torturous position.
"Now, how many fingers do you see ?", "4 i see 4!, i don't know what you want me to say, I will say 5 if you just stop ...!"

That is harsh.

Is it our future? It sure will be if we don't see the fascists projecting their criminal acts on the innocent. We need to be wanting to stop the insanity of the leftist loons before a Chinese Communist style tyranny rules our society. Idiocracy the movie might prove prophetic if we can't convince people to avoid the stupidity that parades itself as intellectual on MSM. Starve them of watchers.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: shooterbrody




actually the senate doing the job of the house would be unconstitutional, would it not?


No, having witnesses in a senate impeachment trial is not unconstitutional.

It wasn't unconstitutional when it happened during clintons trial.



In a 54-44 vote, the Senate passed a resolution approving subpoenas for three people: Sidney Blumenthal, Monica Lewinsky, and Vernon Jordan.

And werent they questioned by the house?
The ones this batch want WERE NOT.
cheese and rice



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The senate should not legitimize the house bs articles obtained without these witnesses.
F them
The house should have done their job properly.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 10:05 PM
link   
www.politico.com...

Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic Thursday that they can knock down an attempt to call more witnesses during President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial and wrap up the whole thing by the weekend. But they don't have it in the bag just yet. It will all come to a head Thursday night when Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a key swing vote, plans to announce his decision.
so guess its down to the wire as to the witnesses question and were waiting on lamar to sort of be the example of whats gonna go down on if hes acquitted Friday or if this drags on more



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 10:08 PM
link   
www.npr.org... and lamar says NO to witnesses seems this will end Friday

Sen. Lamar Alexander said on Thursday night that he will not vote to allow witnesses and evidence into the impeachment trial of President Trump, he announced on Thursday. "There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a "mountain of overwhelming evidence." The decision delivers a devastating blow to House managers prosecuting Trump, all but ensuring witnesses will not be called for Trump's trial.
so no new witnesses



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Susan Collins = YES for witnesses.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
www.politico.com...

Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic Thursday that they can knock down an attempt to call more witnesses during President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial and wrap up the whole thing by the weekend. But they don't have it in the bag just yet. It will all come to a head Thursday night when Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a key swing vote, plans to announce his decision.
so guess its down to the wire as to the witnesses question and were waiting on lamar to sort of be the example of whats gonna go down on if hes acquitted Friday or if this drags on more

Alexander says nope
Its over



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
www.politico.com...

Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic Thursday that they can knock down an attempt to call more witnesses during President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial and wrap up the whole thing by the weekend. But they don't have it in the bag just yet. It will all come to a head Thursday night when Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a key swing vote, plans to announce his decision.
so guess its down to the wire as to the witnesses question and were waiting on lamar to sort of be the example of whats gonna go down on if hes acquitted Friday or if this drags on more

Alexander says nope
Its over

Two or Three Democrats are (probably) going to vote "No". With 53 Repubs/47 Dems, Alexander's vote wasn't that critical was it?
edit on 1/30/2020 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

eh some were saying others were waiting for him to respond to see how the wind was blowing so to speak so its theorized hes gonna keep the other rhinos in line



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: carewemust

eh some were saying others were waiting for him to respond to see how the wind was blowing so to speak so its theorized hes gonna keep the other rhinos in line


With Romney, Collins, Murkowski voting YES for witnesses, was Lamar that influential?




top topics



 
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join