• 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!

Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins

trouble13 said:
It really depends on what Trumps argument is. If he is arguing that hunter was involved in suspicious activity then his activity becomes relevant to the extent that he can show reasonable cause for requesting the investigation.
I think the WB is possibly another relevant witness and Schiff may be a material witness if it turns out there was cordination going on between him and the WB.
Seems like nobody is after the whole truth. They only want the truth that leads to the desired outcome they want.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If Trump really thought that Hunter did something illegal then he should've gone through legal channels and have the AG Barr make an official request for an investigation as required by the cooperation agreement with Ukraine. But he didn't do that, did he?

The other problem with that defense is that the only time Trump ever talks about corruption is when he's implicating Biden. He never talks about Ukraines corruption or anyone else's corruption...he only talks about Biden's alleged corruption. But again, he's still not asking for a legal investigation.

The only thing the WB did was file a legal complaint. The IG found it credible enough to call it "URGENT" and many witnesses have come forward to vouch for everything the WB complaint said. So it would be redundant and unnecessary for the WB to testify because he wouldn't have any new information to add that his complaint and witnesses didn't already address. And Republicans certainly can't prove that he lied because the evidence and witnesses have already proven that he didn't. The best they can do now use him to smear and threaten Schiff with but that won't change any of the evidence or facts in the case.

So whatabout Nunes as a material witness? He was directly involved in the Ukraine Biden conspiracy and hid it from the inquiry. His and his aides phone records with Giuliani and Parnas are in the articles of impeachment. So he could be called as a fact witness...under oath. Not that an oath would matter to a liar like Nunes.
 
Moot said:
If Trump really thought that Hunter did something illegal then he should've gone through legal channels and have the AG Barr make an official request for an investigation as required by the cooperation agreement with Ukraine. But he didn't do that, did he?

The other problem with that defense is that the only time Trump ever talks about corruption is when he's implicating Biden. He never talks about Ukraines corruption or anyone else's corruption...he only talks about Biden's alleged corruption. But again, he's still not asking for a legal investigation.

The only thing the WB did was file a legal complaint. The IG found it credible enough to call it "URGENT" and many witnesses have come forward to vouch for everything the WB complaint said. So it would be redundant and unnecessary for the WB to testify because he wouldn't have any new information to add that his complaint and witnesses didn't already address. And Republicans certainly can't prove that he lied because the evidence and witnesses have already proven that he didn't. The best they can do now use him to smear and threaten Schiff with but that won't change any of the evidence or facts in the case.

So whatabout Nunes as a material witness? He was directly involved in the Ukraine Biden conspiracy and hid it from the inquiry. His and his aides phone records with Giuliani and Parnas are in the articles of impeachment. So he could be called as a fact witness...under oath. Not that an oath would matter to a liar like Nunes.
Click to expand...
I dont have any objection about anyone being called. I'd like to fully understand everything thst happened.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Sorry but you are making a fallacious argument. Trump is elected by the people but he is a represenitive of our constitutional republic. He is not your subordinate.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The argument I'm making is for open government. Don't know why you bring up subordination. Trump works for us. Not as a representative mind you, unless he's representing us on the world stage. That is all irrelevant to my point. My point, again, is open government, not secretive government.
 
Linc said:
trump and his Roy Cohn at the DoJ opposed going to court and threatened to sue. Now they hide behind court.

Why does the trump cult support multiple sides of every trump argument?
Click to expand...

Schiff rescinded his subpoenas prior to the court date. Maybe you should be asking why.
 
ludin said:
How can you have a fair hearing when you won't allow the defendants lawyers to cross examine witnesses or call for witness testimony?
This makes Democrats as well as schiff and Pelosi look like the crooks they really are.
Click to expand...
In a grand jury, the defendant doesn't get to call witnesses or defend themselves except on rare occasions about specific allegations. That is quite normal. The purpose is to find out if there is enough evidence to take to trial. But the prosecutor absolutely can and normally does look for further evidence and can and normally does present any that is found.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
apdst said:
With the judge's approval. If the judge says no, then the evidence can't be introduced.

If he does approve, the defense gets to see it, before the jury. It's called "discovery".

Guess who the judge is in this trial?
Click to expand...
Chief Justice Roberts

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
sjmay said:
OMG, you mean a Politician lied to you?

You should do the research on it, you will see that the Senate is allowing House Dems to present the evidence an witness testimony from the House investigation....but I guess that's not what they want you to believe is it?
Click to expand...

Yes, we know how enthusiastic you Trumpsters are about being lied to.

Limbaugh, Hammity and Rush have been making big bank BS’ing right wingers for thirty years.

Donald Trump doesn’t even understand the concept of honesty (except to use as a weapon against those unfortunate enough to possess it).
 
TomFitz said:
Yes, we know how enthusiastic you Trumpsters are about being lied to.

Limbaugh, Hammity and Rush have been making big bank BS’ing right wingers for thirty years.

Donald Trump doesn’t even understand the concept of honesty (except to use as a weapon against those unfortunate enough to possess it).
Click to expand...

Their argument has become: Everyone has committed a crime in their lives, even if it is only jaywalking, so nobody should be charged with a crime, even murderers.
 
roguenuke said:
In a grand jury, the defendant doesn't get to call witnesses or defend themselves except on rare occasions about specific allegations. That is quite normal. The purpose is to find out if there is enough evidence to take to trial. But the prosecutor absolutely can and normally does look for further evidence and can and normally does present any that is found.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But it’s not hard to see how easy it is to get the Trump lemmings parroting and recycling this obviously false comparison between the investigation and the trial.
 
JustHanging said:
Their argument has become: Everyone has committed a crime in their lives, even if it is only jaywalking, so nobody should be charged with a crime, even murderers.
Click to expand...


They’re pretty much down to that.

They twist their necks in knots to ignore and excuse the blatant self serving corruption.
 
Moot said:
That's a lie...republicans were not shut out of the basement inquiry and they had the same opportunity and the same amount of time to call and question witnesses as the Democrats did.
Click to expand...

Name one witness Schiftt allowed republicans to call. Name one republican who could freely examine witnesses without interruption and hindrance from Schitff. Name one Trump lawyer who was allowed to attend. Give one evidence that Schiftt allowed any representative to mount a defense against the bogus charges.

Schitff ran a tight ****ff show joke of a trial and now they want the Senate to rubber stamp their trumped up results.
 
ClaraD said:
when there is new evidence it should be heard. If there was evidence that cleared him of wrongdoing, you would want to hear it right? So why not hear the other evidence that might definitively condemn him? We should hear all evidence condenatory or exculpatory.
Click to expand...

No, I want the Senate to judge the House's case, AS IT IS. That's all I want. Why can't they do that?
 
marke said:
Name one witness Schiftt allowed republicans to call. Name one republican who could freely examine witnesses without interruption and hindrance from Schitff. Name one Trump lawyer who was allowed to attend. Give one evidence that Schiftt allowed any representative to mount a defense against the bogus charges.

Schitff ran a tight ****ff show joke of a trial and now they want the Senate to rubber stamp their trumped up results.
Click to expand...

Johnathan Turley,
 
TomFitz said:
Johnathan Turley,
Click to expand...

LMFAO he wasn't a witness, holy **** man......he was a constitutional expert that was allowed to speak to the legalities of what was going on......the fact that you claim him as a witness says a lot.
 
JacksinPA said:
Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins - The New York Times

Republicans made last-minute changes to their proposed rules to placate moderates, but they held together to turn back Democratic efforts to subpoena documents.

WASHINGTON — A divided Senate began the impeachment trial of President Trump on Tuesday in utter acrimony, as Republicans blocked Democrats’ efforts to subpoena witnesses and documents related to Ukraine and moderate Republicans forced last-minute changes to rules that had been tailored to the president’s wishes.

In a series of party-line votes punctuating 12 hours of debate, Senate Republicans turned back every attempt by Democrats to subpoena documents from the White House, State Department and other agencies, as well as testimony from White House officials that could shed light on the core charges against Mr. Trump.
====================================================================
How can you have a fair trial when the defendant's lawyers won't permit evidence or witness testimony? This makes the Republicans as well as Trump look more like the crooks they really are?
[paywall - I have a NYT account]
Click to expand...

The party of no is back.
 
Atomic Kid said:
There is no way if I'm the Democrats that I would allow such an exchange. Don't allow the Senate to do the dirty work Ukraine tried so desperately hard to avoid having to do in order get their aid.
Click to expand...
I dont think the Democrats have any say in it of the Republicans are united.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
JacksinPA said:
Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins - The New York Times

Republicans made last-minute changes to their proposed rules to placate moderates, but they held together to turn back Democratic efforts to subpoena documents.

WASHINGTON — A divided Senate began the impeachment trial of President Trump on Tuesday in utter acrimony, as Republicans blocked Democrats’ efforts to subpoena witnesses and documents related to Ukraine and moderate Republicans forced last-minute changes to rules that had been tailored to the president’s wishes.

In a series of party-line votes punctuating 12 hours of debate, Senate Republicans turned back every attempt by Democrats to subpoena documents from the White House, State Department and other agencies, as well as testimony from White House officials that could shed light on the core charges against Mr. Trump.
====================================================================
How can you have a fair trial when the defendant's lawyers won't permit evidence or witness testimony? This makes the Republicans as well as Trump look more like the crooks they really are?
[paywall - I have a NYT account]
Click to expand...

Your supposed to have the evidence BEFORE the trial, not start collecting it AT the trial. Remember when they told us they had plenty of evidence to pass articles of impeachment?
 
Tlrmln said:
Your supposed to have the evidence BEFORE the trial, not start collecting it AT the trial. Remember when they told us they had plenty of evidence to pass articles of impeachment?
Click to expand...

Lewinsky did not testify in the House but did testify in the Senate. This is not a criminal proceeding. No one is being sentenced to prison.
 
ecofarm said:
Lewinsky did not testify in the House but did testify in the Senate. This is not a criminal proceeding. No one is being sentenced to prison.
Click to expand...

Let me quote:

In a series of party-line votes punctuating 12 hours of debate, Senate Republicans turned back every attempt by Democrats to subpoena documents from the White House, State Department and other agencies, as well as testimony from White House officials that could shed light on the core charges against Mr. Trump.
Click to expand...
 
Tlrmln said:
Let me quote:

​
Click to expand...

That's false. A classified page was entered into evidence (last night) and it will not be released to the public. A document from the White House was admitted into evidence.
 
ecofarm said:
Let me quote:
Click to expand...

No, she actually testified in a closed-door deposition, excerpts of which were played at the trial. Every Democrat in the Senate but one voted against allowing even this.
 
marke said:
Name one witness Schiftt allowed republicans to call.
Click to expand...
  1. David Hale,
  2. Tim Morrison,
  3. Kurt Volker
READ: House Republican witness list for impeachment hearings | Fox News


Name one republican who could freely examine witnesses without interruption and hindrance from Schitff.
Click to expand...
Fact check: White House counsel falsely claims Republicans weren’t allowed into closed hearings
PS. Schiff isn't really that hard to spell.

Name one Trump lawyer who was allowed to attend.
Click to expand...
Trump’s Lawyers Won’t Participate in Impeachment Hearing on Wednesday - The New York Times

Judiciary Committee -> Investigators
House -> Grand Jury
Impeachment -> Indictment
Senate -> Jury
Impeachment Trial -> Criminal Trial.

In what universe is the defense allowed to cross examine witnesses in a grand jury proceeding, or sit with the FBI and question witnesses as the FBI investigates? In what universe is a criminal defendant immune from any criminal prosecution? In what universe does the defense in a trial get to coordinate with the judge to determine that no evidence or testimony gets to be presented to the jury? Trump has been given more rights and privilege than any other US citizen possibly in the entire history of the United States. And yet the snowflakes whine and meltdown about how "unfair" this is.

Our country was founded on the principle that no one is above the law. It was the first complaint in the declaration of independence "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." For those who don't understand American principles, I humbly suggest that they migrate to a country that is more in tune with such authoritarian ideals. They will not be missed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom