The Impeachment Thread

#31,427
#31,427
Boston Vol said:
But again, what leverage do they have? Do you honestly think Pelosi is just going to sit on the articles indefinitely? Do you honestly think that will sit well with voters?
Click to expand...
I don't think having a trial without any witnesses called will sit well with voters either. Who has ever heard of such a thing?
 
#31,428
#31,428
BowlBrother85 said:
It is definitely political theater as you say, but how can you have a trial without calling any witnesses? I don't think it is a tenable position for Republicans to hold. I think the American people want to hear from those who did in fact have first hand knowledge of what went down... those people are John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and Mike Pompeo. Let's get them under oath and if they do exonerate the President? So be it... we can move on to the acquittal.
Click to expand...
Did the Senate interfere with the totalitarian approach the Dems took in the House? No. The House shouldn't be trying to interfere with whatever approach the Senate decides to take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, AM64 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#31,429
#31,429
BowlBrother85 said:
I don't think having a trial without any witnesses called will sit well with voters either. Who has ever heard of such a thing?
Click to expand...

it's not a traditional trial.

the collective "meh" of the electorate tells you how well the process has been received so far. no one other than extreme partisans give a crap about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NurseGoodVol and BigOrangeD
#31,431
#31,431
BowlBrother85 said:
I don't think having a trial without any witnesses called will sit well with voters either. Who has ever heard of such a thing?
Click to expand...
That's fine. If voters disapprove, the left should like the results. Doesn't justify Nancy delaying the inevitable.
 
#31,435
#31,435
volinbham said:
they wanted to hear from them prior to the vote but the House decided their testimony was unnecessary. the House set the tone on the necessity of said testimony in the process.
Click to expand...
It was obviously unnecessary to impeach.....they've proven that.
BUT, it is necessary to fairly judge the case.
 
#31,437
#31,437
volinbham said:
they wanted to hear from them prior to the vote but the House decided their testimony was unnecessary. the House set the tone on the necessity of said testimony in the process.
Click to expand...
This part of your first sentence is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. They were all subpoenaed by the House, but on orders from the White House, they refused to appear and testify. The Democratic Party leadership in the House of Representatives understands that it could take several months of battles in the courts to finally compel them to testify and they simply weren't going to go through this for what could be, a year or more. Look how long it took for a court to finally compel Don McGahn to testify? It's ridiculous. The White House set the tone on witness testimony by blocking those subpoenaed witnesses from testifying. I don't think the American people will stand for that again in the Senate trial, where Republicans have control... but we will see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol and Mick
#31,438
#31,438
luthervol said:
It was obviously unnecessary to impeach.....they've proven that.
BUT, it is necessary to fairly judge the case.
Click to expand...


Perfect admission that those who voted for (remember the concept of innocent until proven guilty) did so without having the information they needed to fairly judge it. If anything sums up the process better than that I can't think of what it would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, AM64, hog88 and 1 other person
#31,439
#31,439
BowlBrother85 said:
This part of your first sentence is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. They were all subpoenaed by the House, but on orders from the White House, they refused to appear and testify. The Democratic Party leadership in the House of Representatives understands that it could take several months of battles in the courts to finally compel them to testify and they simply weren't going to go through this for what could be, a year or more. Look how long it took for a court to finally compel Don McGahn to testify? It's ridiculous. The White House set the tone on witness testimony by blocking those subpoenaed witnesses from testifying. I don't think the American people will stand for that again in the Senate trial, where Republicans have control... but we will see.
Click to expand...

Who's misrepresenting here?

Several months is a small price to pay particularly given that Nancy has chosen to put at least a month between the vote and sending to the Senate.

They did deem it unnecessary as evidenced by all their comments that the evidence to date clearly proves the case. They set the standard. Now they say it wasn't enough evidence.

The most galling kicker is that not only didn't they go through the process to compel testimony, they actually created a charge for doing it. If a Dem ever gets elected to POTUS again and refuses in the slightest to comply with a Congressional subpoena the standard has been set for an article of impeachment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, AM64 and DC_Vol
#31,440
#31,440
volinbham said:
Perfect admission that those who voted for (remember the concept of innocent until proven guilty) did so without having the information they needed to fairly judge it. If anything sums up the process better than that I can't think of what it would be.
Click to expand...
You can't be serious.
Impeachment isn't a trial. It's the process taken to begin a trial. If you had to be proven guilty in order to impeach, then what's the point of even having the Senate involved? It would have already been proven. Do you see the lunacy of your position?

It's like saying the grand jury can only advance a case if it is proven that the crime was committed. That's what the damn trial is for.

It's two different standards meant to achieve two different goals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#31,441
#31,441
luthervol said:
You can't be serious.
Impeachment isn't a trial. It's the process taken to begin a trial. If you had to be proven guilty in order to impeach, then what's the point of even having the Senate involved? It would have already been proven. Do you see the lunacy of your position?

It's like saying the grand jury can only advance a case if it is proven that the crime was committed. That's what the damn trial is for.

It's two different standards meant to achieve two different goals.
Click to expand...

your words my friend - the case couldn't be fairly judged at the time the Dems voted for it. Yet they voted for it any way. It's an admission that it's partisan
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and AM64
#31,442
#31,442
BowlBrother85 said:
They're stalling because they want witnesses called during the Senate trial. They want to hear from John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Mick Mulvaney, specifically... and the "this will hurt the Democrats in November" narrative is getting played to death. There is no evidence of that in the polls, but if you really think it's true, then this whole process shouldn't bother you.
Click to expand...

Not how this works.

Not how it legally works at all now.

Sorry but there is no calling new witnesses.

The senate votes on the acts brought forth by the house and the evidence given them. There is no new evidence gathering in the senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#31,443
#31,443
luthervol said:
You can't be serious.
Impeachment isn't a trial. It's the process taken to begin a trial. If you had to be proven guilty in order to impeach, then what's the point of even having the Senate involved? It would have already been proven. Do you see the lunacy of your position?

It's like saying the grand jury can only advance a case if it is proven that the crime was committed. That's what the damn trial is for.

It's two different standards meant to achieve two different goals.
Click to expand...

I didn't see a jury, did you? Was Nancy the Judge since Trump waved representation in the trial and didn't provide any witnesses. I say guilty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#31,444
#31,444
NEOCON said:
Not how this works.

Not how it legally works at all now.

Sorry but there is no calling new witnesses.

The senate votes on the acts brought forth by the house and the evidence given them. There is no new evidence gathering in the senate.
Click to expand...
That is not true... not true at all. At least, it doesn't have to be. Granted, the Senate does make the rules. Don't you remember anything about the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the subsequent Senate trial 21 years ago? There were witnesses called during the trial and there was new evidence gathered. You don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
 
#31,445
#31,445
volinbham said:
your words my friend - the case couldn't be fairly judged at the time the Dems voted for it. Yet they voted for it any way. It's an admission that it's partisan
Click to expand...
I guess you are serious. Sorry for the over-estimation.
They could fairly judge the legitimacy of impeachment and advancing it to a trial.
Further testimony is needed in the ACTUAL trial.

It's not really that complicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#31,448
#31,448
Velo Vol said:
There wasn't live witness testimony in Clinton's impeachment.
Click to expand...
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not true... not true at all. At least, it doesn't have to be. Granted, the Senate does make the rules. Don't you remember anything about the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the subsequent Senate trial 21 years ago? There were several witnesses called during the trial and there was new evidence gathered. You don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
Click to expand...

One of you is correct
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top