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.
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.
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.
actually the senate doing the job of the house would be unconstitutional, would it not?
In a 54-44 vote, the Senate passed a resolution approving subpoenas for three people: Sidney Blumenthal, Monica Lewinsky, and Vernon Jordan.
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.
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
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.
hrrm sounds almost like exactly what the republicans are saying this time word for word what the dems told them funny how that works
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 no new witnesses
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.
originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
www.politico.com...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
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.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
www.politico.com...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
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.
Alexander says nope
Its over
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