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: 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.
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.
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
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: carewemust
another kavanaughing?
be careful around diane dont call me china fienstein
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.
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: carewemust
A trial with no witnesses??!