• 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

jmotivator said:
The Republicans are performing their duties in the Senate with all the non-partisanship of the Democrats in the House. They were warned to not go purely political in their House hearings and they said "screw you Senate, you can't tell us what to do!" now they showed up to the Senate without a case demanding that the Republicans help them build one.

The Democrats can eat ****.
Click to expand...

The Republicans can eat **** next November.
 
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...

It is very unusual to enter a trial and then request subpoenas for additional witness testimony or evidence. The first question the judge will ask is, "Why didn't you take care of this before we started the trial?" You don't start looking for additional information during a trial unless something 'new' comes to light.

What this does is make House Democrats look unprepared, and shows they are playing games with the process - trying to fish for additional information, rather than presenting their case.
 
sjmay said:
So essentially an indictment is saying, your your're guilty, REGARDLESS of if regardless of whether we prove it or not, but if . If we can prove it, you get locked up. ; if we can't prove it, your you're still guilty ..... but able to walk free....
Click to expand...

Um no. An indictment says we have enough evidence to try you for a crime.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
So, as they say, what's new? Have they got anything at all?
Click to expand...

There's 70 subpoenas for documents that are outstanding, and a dozen people who refused to comply with their subpoenas who would all be pertinent to the senate trial. So, the short answer is yes there would most certainly be 'something new'.
 
dcsports said:
It is very unusual to enter a trial and then request subpoenas for additional witness testimony or evidence. The first question the judge will ask is, "Why didn't you take care of this before we started the trial?" You don't start looking for additional information during a trial unless something 'new' comes to light.

What this does is make House Democrats look unprepared, and shows they are playing games with the process - trying to fish for additional information, rather than presenting their case.
Click to expand...

Every single past senate impeachment trial had witnesses. You're just spouting disproven talking points and you know it.
 
HumblePi said:
There's 70 subpoenas for documents that are outstanding, and a dozen people who refused to comply with their subpoenas who would all be pertinent to the senate trial. So, the short answer is yes there would most certainly be 'something new'.
Click to expand...
Then they should plead their case to the courts to get it all resolved, or arrived at the Senate better prepared. They seem to be poor planners.
 
danielpalos said:
the articles have already been written; the Senate must prove or disprove them according to our Constitution and the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Correction. The House Managers must prove (or not) to the Senators that the president committed the acts specified in the articles. They must also prove that these acts are impeachable offenses. The President's team is responsible to show why this isn't the case.

The Senators are making the decision - they have no part in presenting the case.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Every single past senate impeachment trial had witnesses. You're just spouting disproven talking points and you know it.
Click to expand...
Seems their problem from Day One was trying to hold a partisan impeachment. That was rather stupid and doomed to fail, just as it should.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Then they should plead their case to the courts to get it all resolved, or arrived at the Senate better prepared. They seem to be poor planners.
Click to expand...

They also dropped a number of the subpoenas. Asking for new subpoenas now for the same thing SHOULD be declined.
 
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 HOUSE is supposed to present their evidence. If you are a prosecutor and go to trial with a weak case, you don't get a do over in front of the judge and say, "Um, err, your honor, sir, please. We didn't want to risk getting slapped down by the Supreme Court on Trumps claim of executive privilege and we wanted to do an end around them. We want the SENATE to now do what we didn't want to do."

The judge would look at the attorney with daggers in his eyes, grab his gavel, bonk him over the head with it ad say "this case is effing dismissed!!!"
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Then they should plead their case to the courts to get it all resolved, or arrived at the Senate better prepared. They seem to be poor planners.
Click to expand...

I think their biggest miscalculation was thinking the senate would stall taking on the case, and drag it on through the elections. Now they can't win, because the facts were never on their side. Just lies and unproven allegations.

Instead, they said "bring it on," and the democrats aren't ready.

The democrats are going to lose big this election for their unethical political games.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
Every single past senate impeachment trial had witnesses. You're just spouting disproven talking points and you know it.
Click to expand...

First, I don't know that this is actually the case. Most impeachments have been for egregious actions and there is little discussion. As for Presidential impeachments, there's been only two. The one modern precedent (Clinton) is being used here, and those witnesses were previously deposed.

Asking for NEW witnesses during a trial is very unusual.
 
Last edited:
sjmay said:
So essentially an indictment is saying, your guilty, REGARDLESS of if we prove it or not, but if we can prove it, you get locked up, if we can't prove it, your still guilty.....but able to walk free....
Click to expand...

Nope, an indictment means that you get a trial (or, most often, are offered a plea deal) to determine your guilt.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Seems their problem from Day One was trying to hold a partisan impeachment. That was rather stupid and doomed to fail, just as it should.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as bipartisanship when the President commits one of the most blatantly obvious acts of abuse of power in the country's history and Republican Senators stand behind him in a bid to retain their own power.

Facts:
1. Trump illegally withheld aid to Ukraine, violating the Impoundment Control Act
2. Trump had Rudy work to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens for his personal political benefit
3. Rudy worked directly with Parnas and corrupt Ukrainians to have this investigation announced
4. The purpose of the announcement was solely to damage Biden's political campaign
5. Ukraine was pressured - blackmailed - into acquiescing to this demand

There was no concern about corruption in Ukraine. There was no justification for any claim of "corruption" on the part of the Bidens. There was no attempt to investigate the Bidens through normal investigatory channels. There's documentary evidence that shows all this. And yet for some reason Republicans just don't care that the President of the United States would exert the government's foreign policy to benefit himself politically. It boggles the mind the hoops people go through to support this guy. Why they would continue to support him is just incomprehensible. There's no point at which a Trump supporter will say he has done something wrong. He literally stole millions of dollars from a cancer charity to spend on himself, and yet this is the guy they support. It's pitiful.
 
dcsports said:
First, I don't know that this is actually the case. Most impeachments have been for egregious actions and there is little discussion. As for Presidential impeachments, there's been only two. The one modern precedent (Clinton) is being used here, and those witnesses were previously deposed.
Click to expand...
Other impeachment hearings were also bipartisan which means that both sides agreed that the president had acted badly. Now it's strictly partisan.

Two Democrats in the House have already broken ranks and there will likely be more in the Senate.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
There is no such thing as bipartisanship when the President commits one of the most blatantly obvious acts of abuse of power in the country's history and Republican Senators stand behind him in a bid to retain their own power.

Facts:
1. Trump illegally withheld aid to Ukraine, violating the Impoundment Control Act
2. Trump had Rudy work to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens for his personal political benefit
3. Rudy worked directly with Parnas and corrupt Ukrainians to have this investigation announced
4. The purpose of the announcement was solely to damage Biden's political campaign
5. Ukraine was pressured - blackmailed - into acquiescing to this demand

There was no concern about corruption in Ukraine. There was no justification for any claim of "corruption" on the part of the Bidens. There was no attempt to investigate the Bidens through normal investigatory channels. There's documentary evidence that shows all this. And yet for some reason Republicans just don't care that the President of the United States would exert the government's foreign policy to benefit himself politically. It boggles the mind the hoops people go through to support this guy. Why they would continue to support him is just incomprehensible. There's no point at which a Trump supporter will say he has done something wrong. He literally stole millions of dollars from a cancer charity to spend on himself, and yet this is the guy they support. It's pitiful.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm very familiar with that argument and you summed it up much better than Adam Schiff ever did.
 
dcsports said:
First, I don't know that this is actually the case.
Click to expand...

If you don't know that that's actually the case, then why are you claiming that it's out of the ordinary to have witnesses? How can you make such a claim if you don't know what was done in the past? I know that that is actually the case, and I also know that that shows that you really don't care what past precedent is; you're just repeating talking points that FOX shoved down your throat.

Here's a list of the 19 past impeachment trials the senate has conducted before Trump.

Of those 19, 4 were halted before beginning of proceedings when three judges resigned and a fourth when the Senate realized it didn't have jurisdiction over impeaching its own senator (Blount).

Of the 15 that actually went to trial, every single one of them had witnesses.

Most impeachments have been for egregious actions and there is little discussion. As for Presidential impeachments, there's been only two. The one modern precedent (Clinton) is being used here, and those witnesses were previously deposed.
Click to expand...

So you are now admitting, despite your earlier post just minutes ago, that calling witnesses in Senate impeachment trials is not "very unusual" and rather happened in both past Presidential impeachment trials. Whether they were deposed is entirely beside the point.

You yourself with this post have dispelled the notion that the Senate calling witnesses that previously didn't testify in front of the house is not unusual. You're now moving the goalposts to claiming that the "unusualness" is only if the Senate subpoenas witnesses who haven't been previously deposed by the House. Yet if we want to look at past precedent, the Senate has had witnesses in impeachment trials that weren't subpoenaed or deposed by the House. So your claim about precedent is both wrong and arbitrary.

You've shown yourself to be disingenuous.

Further, there is no reason that past precedent offers any kind of requirement for what the Senate does today. For example, out of the 15 past impeachments, not a single one only offered 24 hours for each side to argue their case. In fact, we can point to numerous Senate rules that break "past precedent". You're literally arguing against yourself here and you just don't care how contradictory you are.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
There is no such thing as bipartisanship when the President commits one of the most blatantly obvious acts of abuse of power in the country's history and Republican Senators stand behind him in a bid to retain their own power.

Facts:
1. Trump illegally withheld aid to Ukraine, violating the Impoundment Control Act
2. Trump had Rudy work to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens for his personal political benefit
3. Rudy worked directly with Parnas and corrupt Ukrainians to have this investigation announced
4. The purpose of the announcement was solely to damage Biden's political campaign
5. Ukraine was pressured - blackmailed - into acquiescing to this demand

There was no concern about corruption in Ukraine. There was no justification for any claim of "corruption" on the part of the Bidens. There was no attempt to investigate the Bidens through normal investigatory channels. There's documentary evidence that shows all this. And yet for some reason Republicans just don't care that the President of the United States would exert the government's foreign policy to benefit himself politically. It boggles the mind the hoops people go through to support this guy. Why they would continue to support him is just incomprehensible. There's no point at which a Trump supporter will say he has done something wrong. He literally stole millions of dollars from a cancer charity to spend on himself, and yet this is the guy they support. It's pitiful.
Click to expand...

OK, now fluff that very complete and concise argument up such that it takes many hours to present. ;)
 
Mithros said:
Um no. An indictment says we have enough evidence to try you for a crime.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the grammar nazi showing up, perfect timing as always.

But you are missing the bigger point,

If the result of a trial is guilty, or not guilty, not, guilty or innocent.....then if you aren't guilty, you are not guilty, not innocent, so in today's society, an indictment ruins the person's name REGARDLESS they are found guilty or not.
 
trouble13 said:
This is a tactical choice by both sides. The prosecution decided to inject their opening arguments into what should only be process arguments in the first stage of arguing over process rules. The defense could of reasonably objected to that but they chose not to. They chose to only argue why the procedures should not be amended without arguing the merits of the case. Its debatable if this was a mistake or not. Lots of people have argued that it was.



Thats not the position they are taking. They are saying that the house is asking for things that they are not entitled to. Its specific what they are claiming falls under immunity.

Your opinion is they doing it to delay things. Trumps position is that he is protecting the powers of the office. If congress disagree the recourse is to challenge that in court. I get thats frustrating but its how our system functions.

I would say they are demanding it more than asking them to do it. Either way its entirely up to the senate to decide that for themselves.

Ok so Bolton shows up and the WH lawyers show up and everytime he is asked a question they stop him from answering it because it ciolates the oresidents right of executive privilege. Now what? Do you expect the senate to take on a court fight that the house didnt tske when they had the chance. Why should the senate fight the houses battle for them?

I would hope so since they felt they had enough evidence to impeach him without the additional evidence. How do you say we had enough yo impeach but we need more to argue for removing him. Its contradictory.

On this point i agree and i would personally prefer to know everything.

They have not been allowed to participate so far. Its been a very one sided situtation. The house only wanted what it wanted snd it made no effort to allow Trump to put on a defense. For all we know when the defense is given the opprotunity to defend themselves in open court they may be planning on releasing a mountain of exculpatory evidence. Its unfair to codemn them for not defending themselves when they have been shut out of the process. Democrats have only offered Trump the option of compliance to their demands and they got an answer from him that they dont like.

No, because that assumes he did something wrong. That has not yet been established. First they need to establish that and then and only then can we conclude an appropiate sanction.



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

This was a intelligent and thoughtful response. Kudos to you.

It is rare, as of late, to actually have a civil dialogue on DP. Thank you for hitting the points by disagreeing without being disagreeable. That is what we are all suppose to be doing here. My respect for you has risen greatly.

That said, I do not agree with much of what you said. Your post is worthy of an equally thoughtful response, which I will give ... but have a very busy couple of days, so I may not post much and it may take a day or so before I address this particular post.

I did, however, want to call you out (in a positive way).
 
sjmay said:
Appreciate the grammar nazi showing up, perfect timing as always.

But you are missing the bigger point,

If the result of a trial is guilty, or not guilty, not, guilty or innocent.....then if you aren't guilty, you are not guilty, not innocent, so in today's society, an indictment ruins the person's name REGARDLESS they are found guilty or not.
Click to expand...

... which is why there much be diligence in the indictment process. Are you suggesting the indictment lacked diligence?

If so, why did the Trump Administration fail to provide witnesses and/or documents that could have refuted this matter very early on in the process. Its pretty safe to say they had no such exculpatory evidence... that everything they had only condemned the man. If so, the indictment is righteous.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
There is no such thing as bipartisanship when the President commits one of the most blatantly obvious acts of abuse of power in the country's history and Republican Senators stand behind him in a bid to retain their own power.

Facts:
1. Trump illegally withheld aid to Ukraine, violating the Impoundment Control Act
2. Trump had Rudy work to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens for his personal political benefit
3. Rudy worked directly with Parnas and corrupt Ukrainians to have this investigation announced
4. The purpose of the announcement was solely to damage Biden's political campaign
5. Ukraine was pressured - blackmailed - into acquiescing to this demand

There was no concern about corruption in Ukraine. There was no justification for any claim of "corruption" on the part of the Bidens. There was no attempt to investigate the Bidens through normal investigatory channels. There's documentary evidence that shows all this. And yet for some reason Republicans just don't care that the President of the United States would exert the government's foreign policy to benefit himself politically. It boggles the mind the hoops people go through to support this guy. Why they would continue to support him is just incomprehensible. There's no point at which a Trump supporter will say he has done something wrong. He literally stole millions of dollars from a cancer charity to spend on himself, and yet this is the guy they support. It's pitiful.
Click to expand...

blatant abuse of power my tail, Biden and his son need to be investigated for corruption.

as for the OP... so when does the actual questioning period begin? today or tomorrow? or has it already?
 
sjmay said:
The House made their case on the evidence they had....the Senate's job...is to evaluate THAT CASE...it's not the job of the Senate to STRENGTHEN or WEAKEN that case....
Click to expand...

A trial has witnesses or it is not a trial. Prosecutors file enough evidence with a Grand Jury to get the indictments and rarely reveal all their evidence before the trial. Also new evidence that has been found after the indictments is always allowed in the trial. A trial is designed to reveal the truth not hide it with semantics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom