• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schumer Slams McConnell's Proposed Senate Trial Rules: as Hell-Bent On Making It Much More Difficult

Continued from the post above...

Part 2.

3. Here is another important difference that has been reported on:

The House’s findings would not automatically be admitted into evidence.

When the Clinton trial opened, the Senate “admitted into evidence,” printed and shared with senators all records generated by the House impeachment inquiry into Mr. Clinton. Not so this time.

Though the House’s evidence from the Trump impeachment inquiry would still be printed and shared with senators, it would only be formally considered by the Senate as part of its official record if a majority of senators voted to do so. That vote could only take place after the Senate decided whether to call witnesses and seek additional documents — that is, as the trial moves toward a conclusion.

A senior Republican aide in the Senate said the change reflected a fundamental difference in the Clinton and Trump cases. In the Clinton case, the House’s evidentiary record largely consisted of materials compiled by Ken Starr, the independent counsel.

This time, House Democrats conducted their impeachment inquiry entirely themselves, without the benefit of a Justice Department investigation. The aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail internal strategy, argued that in doing so, the House had denied Mr. Trump proper due process rights afforded to Mr. Clinton, suggesting the current president was not given a chance to contest the House’s record.

The House invited Mr. Trump to mount a defense before the Judiciary Committee during its impeachment proceeding, including requesting witnesses and documents, but the president’s legal team declined, saying it would not dignify an inquiry it deemed illegitimate with a response.

By not admitting the House impeachment inquiry’s findings into evidence at the outset, Mr. McConnell, too, is in effect treating them as illegitimate.

McConnell Impeachment Rules Modify Clinton Precedent

So, in conclusion, despite your claim to the contrary in a previous post in this thread, there are some differences, important differences, between the rules adopted during the Clinton impeachment trial, and the present trial.

And, also, more importantly, there are significant differences between the process that lead up to the trial that could be resolved, by the Senate, in favor of the pursuit of truth that simply isn't being done in this case. That's important, but you say very little about any of that.

I know you care about the truth.

So if you care about the truth...why do you keep putting forward arguments...the consequence of which...results in lending support to a man who has lied over 16,000 times since assuming office?
 
Last edited:
How little you know of history....

Clinton testified in the trial for the suit brought by Paula Jones accusing Clinton sexual harassment by exposing himself and attempting to have sex with her. In that testimony he lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. When evidence surfaced that he had lied in that deposition the case was picked up by Ken Starr, who then found that not only had Clinton lied to the grand jury in his rape case, but he had also attempted to bribe Lewinsky to give false testimony in the same case to back his own lie.

So perjury and witness tampering were what ended up sparking the impeachment... you know, actual felonies with actual evidence.

And, actually, 4 women have accused Clinton of rape and sexual harassment.

I know this makes you so very angry, but it could be avoided if you'd read books.

How many have accused Trump of sexual assault and yes, even rape? Let's keep a running tally of each, shall we? Then we'll compare notes. Clinton's impeachment trial had nothing whatsoever to do with rape. Oh, how little you know.
 
You should be thankful that they could put Jerry Nadler on after you've gone to bed.
Nadler was heard on an open mic yesterday saying "Toss me - but don't tell the elf!"

5e248a0b220000d8063f7bdb.jpg
 
How many have accused Trump of sexual assault and yes, even rape? Let's keep a running tally of each, shall we? Then we'll compare notes. Clinton's impeachment trial had nothing whatsoever to do with rape. Oh, how little you know.

I said Clinton was impeached for perjury and witness tampering because he was... because that is what he did.

And, again, your conclusion that the Republican proposed rules are "unfair" to the prosecution are amazingly wrong headed and just scream partisanship.
 
The bottom line is this: If Trump is completely innocent, why is Moscow Mitch afraid of witnesses?

Under the circumstances, both sides would be allowed to call witnesses,..so what is the problem?

I have yet to hear a straight answer that doesn't involve CT or a whataboutism.
 
Clinton chose to testify before the grand jury he didn't have to.
Yes those are the rules for the clinton trial. They will get a chance to vote on witnesses later did you not read the rules?




They can argue the evidence on the record. The defense's job is to show reasonable doubt. Speculation and hearsay is not evidence. The House should have done a better job in their investigation.
No he is following the clinton impeachment model.



Sorry this is political remember? if schiff and company can block witnesses from testifying and you are ok with then you should be ok with McConnell blocking witnesses.
if you are not then it is just more hypocrisy that we can dismiss. Nothing here says this trial has to be fair. impeachment is political remember?



We already have house witness testimony none of them have evidence of wrong doing. why do you need to hear it again?



you weren't screaming about a fair process when ****ty schiff was running it were you?
sorry if you weren't screaming about fair then you don't get to scream about fair now.

remember impeachment is political.
Kenneth W. Starr had subpoenaed Clinton but later withdrew the subpoena after the president agreed to give testimony voluntarily under certain conditions. The session was to take place in the White House, not at the courthouse. Prosecutors would have no more than four hours to ask their questions. And the president’s White House and personal lawyers could be in the room, unlike in normal grand jury proceedings.

In addition to issuing a subpoena to Clinton, Ken Starr interviewed window washers at the white house, he interviewed painters, cosmetologists, ex boyfriends, and all entered into the record as rule without any right for Clinton to object at all. The evidence and facts are not their friends in this trial and they don't want facts, new witnesses or documents because they know that they don't help the president's case.
 
[h=1]Schumer Slams McConnell’s Proposed Senate Trial Rules: ‘Hell-Bent On Making It Much More Difficult to Get Witnesses and Documents’[/h]Chuck Schumer Slams Mitch McConnell's Senate Trial Rules
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted his Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a scathing statement that called out Republican’s just-released resolution proposing strict rules for the Senate trial of President Donald Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges.


In a Monday night statement, Schumer called McConnell’s organizing resolution “nothing short of a national disgrace.” Per the Majority Leader’s proposed rules, the Senate would have to first vote to accept the House impeachment evidence and it would give each side 24 hours, over just two days, to present their opening arguments, meaning the impeachment managers and Trump defense team’s speeches could run well past midnight.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our country is lost. Long after Trump is gone, and yes he will be out eventually, we're going to be left with a country that's wide open for pillage by any criminal element that can get inside the White House. Look into the history rear-view mirror and you're going to see our democratic republic has fully collapsed.

All I can say is turnabout is fair play. If Democrats wanted a fair impeachment trial then they should have conducted a fair impeachment hearing and not voted to impeach with no evidence, now wanting the Senate to come up with the evidence.
 
All I can say is turnabout is fair play. If Democrats wanted a fair impeachment trial then they should have conducted a fair impeachment hearing and not voted to impeach with no evidence, now wanting the Senate to come up with the evidence.
Yea, truth hurts.
 
Kenneth W. Starr had subpoenaed Clinton but later withdrew the subpoena after the president agreed to give testimony voluntarily under certain conditions. The session was to take place in the White House, not at the courthouse. Prosecutors would have no more than four hours to ask their questions. And the president’s White House and personal lawyers could be in the room, unlike in normal grand jury proceedings.

In addition to issuing a subpoena to Clinton, Ken Starr interviewed window washers at the white house, he interviewed painters, cosmetologists, ex boyfriends, and all entered into the record as rule without any right for Clinton to object at all. The evidence and facts are not their friends in this trial and they don't want facts, new witnesses or documents because they know that they don't help the president's case.

The powers that Ken Starr had no longer exist.
The congress let those go away.

How do you not know this already?

again it is not the Senates job to do the work of of the House.
schiff got to run his **** show once.
he doesn't get to do it again.
 
The bottom line is this: If Trump is completely innocent, why is Moscow Mitch afraid of witnesses?

Under the circumstances, both sides would be allowed to call witnesses,..so what is the problem?

I have yet to hear a straight answer that doesn't involve CT or a whataboutism.

Because it is not McConnells job to do the work of the house.
That is the houses job. the house rushed it through with no evidence
or anyone that can testify to wrong doing.

all their so called evidence is nothing more than speculation and hearsay.

the only witnesses i think that senate needs to call are the WB and his 6 sources.
we need to get to the bottom of this corruption and if need be schiff and find out
how involved he actually was.
 
The Senate has sole power to try an impeachment. Get over it.

Well, it's been three years now and they still haven't gotten over the fact that Trump is president.
 
Continued from the post above...

Part 2.

3. Here is another important difference that has been reported on:

The House’s findings would not automatically be admitted into evidence.



McConnell Impeachment Rules Modify Clinton Precedent

So, in conclusion, despite your claim to the contrary in a previous post in this thread, there are some differences, important differences, between the rules adopted during the Clinton impeachment trial, and the present trial.

And, also, more importantly, there are significant differences between the process that lead up to the trial that could be resolved, by the Senate, in favor of the pursuit of truth that simply isn't being done in this case. That's important, but you say very little about any of that.

I know you care about the truth.

So if you care about the truth...why do you keep putting forward arguments...the consequence of which...results in lending support to a man who has lied over 16,000 times since assuming office?

If I remember correctly Trump is not being impeached for lying over 16,000 times.
 
How many have accused Trump of sexual assault and yes, even rape? Let's keep a running tally of each, shall we? Then we'll compare notes. Clinton's impeachment trial had nothing whatsoever to do with rape. Oh, how little you know.

Last I remember Trump is not being impeached for sexual assault and rape.
 
The bottom line is this: If Trump is completely innocent, why is Moscow Mitch afraid of witnesses?

Under the circumstances, both sides would be allowed to call witnesses,..so what is the problem?

I have yet to hear a straight answer that doesn't involve CT or a whataboutism.

The House impeached based on the witnesses they had and the left claim as being a mountain of evidence. If they impeached with the witnesses they had and it is a mountain of evidence then you don't need more witnesses.
 
As I said with the last poster to go on with a rant like this. Such hyperbole, only shows ignorance on your part.

This is one of the most off-the-wall posts I've seen. Virtually nothing you say can be substantiated -- it's all just fearmongering -- it has no basis in reality.

If you really believe all of what you wrote -- I feel sorry for you. Quit listening to the media and quit internalizing sensationalism. Our nation is just fine -- Trump has done nothing most, if not all, presidents before him have done with impunity. The only reason the democrats impeached Trump is because they have no one that can beat him. It's purely political.

Similar sentiments were uttered in Germany, circa 1930.

:shock:
 
Last I remember Trump is not being impeached for sexual assault and rape.

That's precisely the point I made to this comment, rape and/or sexual harassment was not any part of the impeachment proceedings of either Clinton or Trump.


How little you know of history....


Clinton testified in the trial for the suit brought by Paula Jones accusing Clinton sexual harassment by exposing himself and attempting to have sex with her. In that testimony he lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. When evidence surfaced that he had lied in that deposition the case was picked up by Ken Starr, who then found that not only had Clinton lied to the grand jury in his rape case, but he had also attempted to bribe Lewinsky to give false testimony in the same case to back his own lie.

So perjury and witness tampering were what ended up sparking the impeachment... you know, actual felonies with actual evidence.

And, actually, 4 women have accused Clinton of rape and sexual harassment.

I know this makes you so very angry, but it could be avoided if you'd read books.
 
If I remember correctly Trump is not being impeached for lying over 16,000 times.

In that post, I was not offering up this data point, that Trump has lied, exaggerated or mislead the American people over 16,000 times, as a fact in support of an argument for Trump's conviction.
 
In that post, I was not offering up this data point, that Trump has lied, exaggerated or mislead the American people over 16,000 times, as a fact in support of an argument for Trump's conviction.

You guys call everything Trump says is a lie. A few seconds ago I read that Hillary said that no one likes Bernie Sanders. If Trump said that you would tally it as a lie.
 
You guys call everything Trump says is a lie. A few seconds ago I read that Hillary said that no one likes Bernie Sanders. If Trump said that you would tally it as a lie.

Start a new thread and we can talk about how often Trump lies...
 
Similar sentiments were uttered in Germany, circa 1930.

:shock:

Which means absolutely nothing.

Similar doom and gloom comments have been made by "End Times" proponents for the past few millennia and their Armageddon has yet to arrive.

Use some common sense.
 
Start a new thread and we can talk about how often Trump lies...

Wait, YOU BRING IT UP....then chide others for responding, that's freaking brilliant.
 
[h=1]Schumer Slams McConnell’s Proposed Senate Trial Rules: ‘Hell-Bent On Making It Much More Difficult to Get Witnesses and Documents’[/h]Chuck Schumer Slams Mitch McConnell's Senate Trial Rules
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted his Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a scathing statement that called out Republican’s just-released resolution proposing strict rules for the Senate trial of President Donald Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges.


In a Monday night statement, Schumer called McConnell’s organizing resolution “nothing short of a national disgrace.” Per the Majority Leader’s proposed rules, the Senate would have to first vote to accept the House impeachment evidence and it would give each side 24 hours, over just two days, to present their opening arguments, meaning the impeachment managers and Trump defense team’s speeches could run well past midnight.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our country is lost. Long after Trump is gone, and yes he will be out eventually, we're going to be left with a country that's wide open for pillage by any criminal element that can get inside the White House. Look into the history rear-view mirror and you're going to see our democratic republic has fully collapsed.
Awww.... the poor lil democrats are upset that those big meanie republicans wont give them what they want. I feel so sad for them. Hopefully the media will wipe off the tears from all those pouty faces.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom