Should the Senate Allow Witnesses Be Called During the Impeachment Trial?

[BreatheUT]

Are you saying Trump didn't screw Stormy while his third wife was home with a newborn?
And that he didn't try to secretly coerce her silence through intimidation and bribery?

Stormy did this sort of thing for a living so I'm not saying that. Yes he had sex with her. She wanted to extort him because he was running for President and she felt like she had been underpaid but what she really wanted was to hurt his candidacy. I'm not saying it was right or wrong what I'm saying is you guys treated Avenatti like a hero and upstanding lawyer. You should know better. As a matter of fact we all know better.

 

[vols40]

Lol. Russians. You left wingers are so scared of them. Why? They cant do anything except spread bad facebook memes and increase your anxiety.

And that's the worst possible thing to them. Maybe the federal government should give them service animals so they can take them to the mall while wearing their pajamas.

 

[Mick]

Lol. Russians. You left wingers are so scared of them. Why? They cant do anything except spread bad facebook memes and increase your anxiety.

The red hats are so scared of Russia or believe their propaganda, they can't say anything bad about them. Good Guy Russia is your rallying cry all because of your love for Trump. Putin is an a$$hole and Trump is nuts, that would make you the taint.

 

[FLVOL_79]

The red hats are so scared of Russia or believe their propaganda, they can't say anything bad about them. Good Guy Russia is your rallying cry all because of your love for Trump. Putin is an a$$hole and Trump is nuts, that would make you the taint.

Lol. We dont care about Russia at all. You should listen to Obama, it might lessen your rusophobia

 

[volfanjustin]

The red hats are so scared of Russia or believe their propaganda, they can't say anything bad about them. Good Guy Russia is your rallying cry all because of your love for Trump. Putin is an a$$hole and Trump is nuts, that would make you the taint.

Tell vlad I'll have more flexibility after the election
Hillary provided a "reset" button
The 80's called, they want their foreign policy back-Barack Hussein Obama to Mitt Romney when he said Russia was our biggest threat

 

[Mick]

Lol. We dont care about Russia at all. You should listen to Obama, it might lessen your rusophobia

I listened to you mock Obama for that when it was convent, but now Obama was right all along. Do tell about this epiphany.

 

[Vol Main]

There's 100% of truth in this post but the blue hatters are too stupid to see it.

You are seeing only what you want to see, which is the cover-up, spoon fed to you by the party machine controlling the Senate. A House representative who was a former federal prosecutor of organized crime clearly explained how the House was like a grand jury and the impeachment is like an indictment. The actual trial is in the Senate, and a fair trial must include documents and testimony. No trial is limited to evidence presented for a grand jury indictment. The burdens of proof are not the same. The burden of proof in the Senate trial is far greater, and that burden requires that both sides present evidence for the impartial justice which every Senator swore an oath to uphold. Instead, Republicans violated their oath, by voting to suppress evidence and obstruct justice.The Senate has never conducted an impeachment trial without both sides having the authority to present subpoenaed evidence. The Supreme Court ruled decisively for the authority of Congressional power of subpoena in the early 1970s. What we are witnessing now, what you are supporting, is the development of a criminal, one party dictatorship. That is what you are supporting, and that is how you will be known forever in the history of this nation.

 

[0nelilreb]

You are seeing only what you want to see, which is the cover-up, spoon fed to you by the party machine controlling the Senate. A House representative who was a former federal prosecutor of organized crime clearly explained how the House was like a grand jury and the impeachment is like an indictment. The actual trial is in the Senate, and a fair trial must include documents and testimony. No trial is limited to evidence presented for a grand jury indictment. The burdens of proof are not the same. The burden of proof in the Senate trial is far greater, and that burden requires that both sides present evidence for the impartial justice which every Senator swore an oath to uphold. Instead, Republicans violated their oath, by voting to suppress evidence and obstruct justice.The Senate has never conducted an impeachment trial without both sides having the authority to present subpoenaed evidence. The Supreme Court ruled decisively for the authority of Congressional power of subpoena in the early 1970s. What we are witnessing now, what you are supporting, is the development of a criminal, one party dictatorship. That is what you are supporting, and that is how you will be known forever in the history of this nation.

Bullfeathers .... not even a first year law student would select a grand jury member as a “ Juror “ (that’s supposed to be neutral until the evidence is heard and then reach an outcome ) that has openly and publicly bashed and called for his resignation, and or removal on national TV , while running for the office that the person holds at the time of the “ Trial “ . This isn’t a trial by law , it’s a political trial with the rules set by simple majority rule .

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Lol. We dont care about Russia at all. You should listen to Obama, it might lessen your rusophobia

 

[Vol Main]

Bullfeathers .... not even a first year law student would select a grand jury member as a “ Juror “ (that’s supposed to be neutral until the evidence is heard and then reach an outcome ) that has openly and publicly bashed and called for his resignation, and or removal on national TV , while running for the office that the person holds at the time of the “ Trial “ . This isn’t a trial by law , it’s a political trial with the rules set by simple majority rule .

That is what you say because your party is the Majority in the Senate. The U.S. Constitution(do you remember it) clearly states the requirement for all members to do impartial justice. I watched the Senators take that oath. An adversarial system pits the prosecution against the defense. Clearly, without any doubt, the Senators are sworn to do impartial justice. But you are correct in believing that is not what happens, because we see what happens, a corrupt party machine making a sham of the trial. We know that every Republican Senator was warned of consequences for voting to allow evidence in the Senate trial. So what we are seeing, what you are accepting and supporting, is unrestrained corruption to abuse power and obstruct justice. You should at least say hey, that is wrong. I do not accept that and will not vote for that.

 

[0nelilreb]

That is what you say because your party is the Majority in the Senate. The U.S. Constitution(do you remember it) clearly states the requirement for all members to do impartial justice. I watched the Senators take that oath. An adversarial system pits the prosecution against the defense. Clearly, without any doubt, the Senators are sworn to do impartial justice. But you are correct in believing that is not what happens, because we see what happens, a corrupt party machine making a sham of the trial. We know that every Senator was warned of consequences for voting to allow evidence in the Senate trial. So what we are seeing, what you are accepting and supporting, is unrestrained corruption to abuse power and obstruct justice. You should at least say hey, that is wrong. I do not accept that and will not vote for that.

That’s a lot of propaganda for me to refute , let’s start simple ... do you believe any senator ( now a juror ) will be impartial to a president that their party has put up for impeachment and removal in this “ trial “ ?

 

[FLVOL_79]

I listened to you mock Obama for that when it was convent, but now Obama was right all along. Do tell about this epiphany.

he was right, they are no threat. Romney was wrong. Funny

 

[Vol Main]

That’s a lot of propaganda for me to refute , let’s start simple ... do you believe any senator ( now a juror ) will be impartial to a president that their party has put up for impeachment and removal in this “ trial “ ?

I know that nearly all Democrats voted in favor of both sides, prosecution and defense, presenting evidence in the trial, that the House representatives argued in favor of an amendment for the subpoena power of both sides. You say the process is political, and you are obviously right, to an extent. Political responsibility in our system of government ultimately rests with voters. How can we know if the defendant is innocent or guilty, without evidence in a trial? We cannot eliminate politics in the trial, but we can mitigate it by allowing both sides to present their case, with evidence allowed in the trial. What you argue to support is a trial that is determined by corruption. Politics do not justify total corruption. Politics do not justify the subversion and violation of our Constitution. You are arguing for the total subversion of our government, by corrupt one party rule.

 

[0nelilreb]

I know that nearly all Democrats voted in favor of both sides, prosecution and defense, presenting evidence in the trial, that the House representatives argued in favor of an amendment for the subpoena power of both sides. You say the process is political, and you are obviously right, to an extent. Political responsibility in our system of government ultimately rests with voters. How can we know if the defendant is innocent or guilty, without evidence in a trial? We cannot eliminate politics in the trial, but we can mitigate it by allowing both sides to present their case, with evidence allowed in the trial. What you argue to support is a trial that is determined by corruption. Politics do not justify total corruption. Politics do not justify the subversion and violation of our Constitution. You are arguing for the total subversion of our government, by corrupt one party rule.

You said all that without answering my question ... impressive indeed . Are you an attorney?

 

[Vol Main]

You said all that without answering my question ... impressive indeed . Are you an attorney?

I typically do not do writing assignments or interrogatories. You are free to read what I have to say or not. No, I've written a few legal briefs in my business, but I am not an attorney.

 

[0nelilreb]

I typically do not do writing assignments or interrogatories. You are free to read what I have to say or not. No, I've written a few legal briefs in my business, but I am not an attorney.

I have read everything you said and that’s why I asked a very simple , straightforward question . Your ability to tap dances around it with an impressive assault of verbiage is what lead me to ask if you were an attorney .

 

[1972 Grad]

That is what you say because your party is the Majority in the Senate. The U.S. Constitution(do you remember it) clearly states the requirement for all members to do impartial justice. I watched the Senators take that oath. An adversarial system pits the prosecution against the defense. Clearly, without any doubt, the Senators are sworn to do impartial justice. But you are correct in believing that is not what happens, because we see what happens, a corrupt party machine making a sham of the trial. We know that every Republican Senator was warned of consequences for voting to allow evidence in the Senate trial. So what we are seeing, what you are accepting and supporting, is unrestrained corruption to abuse power and obstruct justice. You should at least say hey, that is wrong. I do not accept that and will not vote for that.

I guess only the Democrat Senators are truly impartial ?

 

[Vol Main]

I guess only the Democrat Senators are truly impartial ?

You would be right to guess that only Democratic Senators voted for subpoena power of both sides to obtain documents and testimony for the trial.

 

[1972 Grad]

You would be right to guess that only Democratic Senators voted for subpoena power of both sides to obtain documents and testimony for the trial.

Gosh, wonder why? That would drag this thing out for weeks, maybe months. Let's just let this impeachment die on the vine, take a month off, and let the Dems begin work on the next impeachment.

 

[C-south]

The red hats are so scared of Russia or believe their propaganda, they can't say anything bad about them. Good Guy Russia is your rallying cry all because of your love for Trump. Putin is an a$$hole and Trump is nuts, that would make you the taint.

You sound like John McCain.

 

[37L1]

I know that nearly all Democrats voted in favor of both sides, prosecution and defense, presenting evidence in the trial, that the House representatives argued in favor of an amendment for the subpoena power of both sides. You say the process is political, and you are obviously right, to an extent. Political responsibility in our system of government ultimately rests with voters. How can we know if the defendant is innocent or guilty, without evidence in a trial? We cannot eliminate politics in the trial, but we can mitigate it by allowing both sides to present their case, with evidence allowed in the trial. What you argue to support is a trial that is determined by corruption. Politics do not justify total corruption. Politics do not justify the subversion and violation of our Constitution. You are arguing for the total subversion of our government, by corrupt one party rule.

Where oh where were those "fair" Democrats when it came to the rules during the impeachment inquiry? They rewrote the rules so that they greatly differed from those of the previous impeachment. Did they allow the Republicans to call and interview anyone of their choosing? Did they allow the Republicans to present evidence? Did they allow the Republicans all the options that you all are clamoring for now that it has moved to the Senate? At least, up to this point, the Republicans are closely following the pattern set by the previous Clinton trial in the Senate.

If the Democrats had truly wanted to find the truth rather than to "get" this President they would have had no need to have run the "inquiry" in the way that they did, in the rushed manner that they did and then have Pelosi sit on it like trying to hatch an egg. This whole process has been tilted toward the side that has control and there has been nothing "fair" about it from the get go. So don't start crying "truth" and "fair" now, that wasn't your goal and still isn't.

When has there ever been an impeachment where the case was so poorly constructed that not one of the opposing party voted for it and in fact one or two (depending on which vote) from the Democrat side voted against it this time. When has that ever happened? Like never, (that's for you, luther).

The Republicans hardly ever agree on anything, let alone vote as a block, unless the Democrats have given them a very good reason to. Don't you think that just might possibly be the case this time?

Of course you don't, "It's not fair."

 

[Sandman 423]

You claim to value the truth, so I guess you want witnesses called and document provided.
Or maybe your claim of valuing truth is untrue, in which case I assume you support the senate's attempts to bury the truth.

Sort of like Trump's financial dealings.
You claim to want facts and evidence and truth but I assume you support Trump's refusal to release the tax returns and financial documents which he repeatedly promised Americans he would release.
Do you want Trump to keep his word? Or would you prefer that Trump break the multiple promises he made to the American public so he can hide the truth you claim to value.
It's simple - he can be a liar in order to hide the truth.
Or he can keep his promise and provide truthful and factual information.
Again, I think I know which you support, being a Trumper and all.

So are you advocating that we assign a special prosecutor to look into every elected official from hear on out to look for crimes?you know, in search of the truth and all...

 

[Vol Main]

Gosh, wonder why? That would drag this thing out for weeks, maybe months. Let's just let this impeachment die on the vine, take a month off, and let the Dems begin work on the next impeachment.

Actually, that is not quite right. A House representative requested specific documents already gathered by the State Department. The delay you mention would only happen if the State Department refused to comply with the Senate subpoenas. Of course, Trump ordered every person in his Administration to defy the House subpoenas, and he probably would have done the same to Senate subpoenas. But Republican Senators chose to represent their own party instead of their own branch of government.

Here's the rub. Republicans criticize the House for not waiting for long court battles to obtain subpoenaed evidence and then support Republicans in the Senate after they voted to issue no subpoenas, not even one. We are witnessing partisan corruption by Republicans which most voters will not approve.

 

[hog88]

Actually, that is not quite right. A House representative requested specific documents already gathered by the State Department. The delay you mention would only happen if the State Department refused to comply with the Senate subpoenas. Of course, Trump ordered every person in his Administration to defy the House subpoenas, and he probably would have done the same to Senate subpoenas. But Republican Senators chose to represent their own party instead of their own branch of government.

Here's the rub. Republicans criticize the House for not waiting for long court battles to obtain subpoenaed evidence and then support Republicans in the Senate after they voted to issue no subpoenas, not even one. We are witnessing partisan corruption by Republicans which most voters will not approve.

We are witnessing partisanship (wouldn't call it corruption) from both parties.

 

[37L1]

Actually, that is not quite right. A House representative requested specific documents already gathered by the State Department. The delay you mention would only happen if the State Department refused to comply with the Senate subpoenas. Of course, Trump ordered every person in his Administration to defy the House subpoenas, and he probably would have done the same to Senate subpoenas. But Republican Senators chose to represent their own party instead of their own branch of government.

Here's the rub. Republicans criticize the House for not waiting for long court battles to obtain subpoenaed evidence and then support Republicans in the Senate after they voted to issue no subpoenas, not even one. We are witnessing partisan corruption by Republicans which most voters will not approve.

We'll see come November.