A Trial Without Witnesses

a reply to: pavil

I'm sorry you missed the sarcasm in my post.

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

I think that you've misunderstood. This is all about appearances, without witnesses there will always be questions, and these questions will form the basis of future attacks on the trial.

The Democrats will say that witnesses would have turned the trial around in their favor, and history will remember this as the trial where the republicans cheated by denying things that are expected in a trial everywhere else.

Surely if witnesses are essential in a regular jury trial they are essential here?

There is nothing in the constitution forbidding witnesses, and trump could call his own to support his case.

It's not enough to win the trial, this has to be airtight and refusing witnesses creates room for doubt.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

House Democrats interviewed 17 witnesses, but wouldn't allow Republicans to have any of the witnesses they wanted. Law students will learn that is why the Republican-let Senate didn't enable any witnesses. Because the House portion of Impeachment was run like a Kangaroo court.

a reply to: Admitted
'political rival' are senators immune to to investigation if they say they might run? What if I declare my candidacy?

a reply to: Admitted
so uh it appears the dems do not have the needed votes to continue their farce
looks like it is the end of the road for the schiff show

I bet Feinstein put murkowski up to this.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust
another kavanaughing?

be careful around diane dont call me china fienstein

NO witnesses.

Time will tell. Let’s see what happens in November? It’s best to let the people decide. Schiff got his way it looks like they have crashed the stock market.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

What are you talking about "without witnesses"?... Do you forget the SEVENTEEN DEMOCRAT witnesses in the House?... Or do those not count because none of them could admit when pressed that President Trump committed any crime?...

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

I think that you've misunderstood. This is all about appearances, without witnesses there will always be questions, and these questions will form the basis of future attacks on the trial.

The Democrats will say that witnesses would have turned the trial around in their favor, and history will remember this as the trial where the republicans cheated by denying things that are expected in a trial everywhere else.

Surely if witnesses are essential in a regular jury trial they are essential here?

There is nothing in the constitution forbidding witnesses, and trump could call his own to support his case.

It's not enough to win the trial, this has to be airtight and refusing witnesses creates room for doubt.

I understand fine. No matter what circumstances of an acquittal occured, the Democrats would cry foul and use the media to mislead the people. Let's not pretend the Democrats would be honest in any way shape or form if there were witnesses and the President was acquitted.

a reply to: carewemust

A trial with no witnesses??! Sounds like a Senator nobody voted for!!

Seriously. She was appointed after her dad died. She is a menace and should be impeached herself...

Oh. Uh. I mean... YAY politics! The best country in the world!

God bless ‘Merica!!

Let’s get back to ruining the environment and yelling at teenage girls from foreign countries!!

/sarcasm

It is indeed a trial, and there will in fact be an acquittal. No amount of spoiled brat, childish leftist, make-up-your-own-definitions nonsense will change that. It's as much "not a trial" as Trump is "not their President."

a reply to: ketsuko

Didn't even notice who posted it.....shoulda looked. I thought it was Silly. Sorry for mistaking her for you.

a reply to: toolgal462

The transcipt has not been published. If i am wrong, feel free to demonstrate this.

The document we all keep being told to read clearly states it is not a transcript

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: toolgal462

The transcipt has not been published. If i am wrong, feel free to demonstrate this.

The document we all keep being told to read clearly states it is not a transcript

It is a transcript of what the scribes heard was being said...

Plus we have Zelinski himself stating he hasn't looked at what they, the Ukrainians, wrote about that meeting, but to his recollection the transcript is exactly what was discussed...

Zelinski, Morrison, and others whom actually did hear the call stated there was no pressure, and no "quid pro quo."

What kind of "quid pro quo" doesn't let those being bribed know the consequences of not following the demands made of them?...

The Ukrainians didn't even know that the aid was being withheld until the end of August.
Zelinski himself has stated that there was no pressure by President Trump...

Not to mention the FACT that even if it was true it isn't a crime. If it was a crime then Obama and every other POTUS committed crimes by puting restrictions on foreign aid...

BTW, it was the Biden/Obama administration whom denied military aid to Ukraine when the Russians were attempting at invading Ukraine. When the Ukrainians asked the Obama administration for military aid they only sent blankets and mres...

U.S. cuts aid to Uganda, cancels military exercise over anti-gay law

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: carewemust
another kavanaughing?

be careful around diane dont call me china fienstein

But in this case, Diane Feinstein told blackmail-eligible Lisa Murkowski to vote "NO" on witnesses. Feinstein wants to keep investigators far away from herself, and other California lawmakers....like Schiff.

originally posted by: carewemust

But in this case, Diane Feinstein told blackmail-eligible Lisa Murkowski to vote "NO" on witnesses. Feinstein wants to keep investigators far away from herself, and other California lawmakers....like Schiff.

What people do not want to think about is there was witnesses in all this, there was actually 18. The House decided to not push for the witnesses in the impeachment that all of a sudden they wanted in the senate, why not? They didn't even try going after Giuliani who was not protected in anyway, why not? They tried to use the court in the Senate, and the court basically said it was too late for them for that direction since they already impeached the President. They could not put forth even a laughable case that in two hours the defense basically obliterated. We need to remember there was a number of Republicans that were on the fence and they saw no reason to drag out this carp another minute long than is possible in the end.

Remember this wasn't a court of law...It was a court of Congress, so very different, and the only "law" there was the chief justice that wanted no part of it in anyway.

The House knew they could not get 67 votes no matter what, and so they did not really want witnesses either and now they can say it was all a sham. Just more of the same political narrative that they been preaching for three years.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: carewemust

A trial with no witnesses??!

Your sarcastic example of their stupidity is summed up with that comment alone. They are trying hard as if they want to make us believe. The Senators saw the witness testimony so that makes their BS exposed again.

They voted to not have ANY MORE witnesses.

a reply to: Admitted

You don't bring witnesses because it is not the Senates job to do so. If you do in this instance you set a president for that in the future, fundamentally changing the role this governing body has going forward and warping what the framers of our Constitution had intended.

Make no mistake......... Any witnesses, any evidence, any additional information the house wanted to make part of the record was SOLELY up to them. They chose to fast track this, ignore evidence, ignore witness subpoenas and forgo any court supervision to bring the superficial and "house of cards" argument they had to the US Senate.

Whoops!