• 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!

McConnell: In 'total coordination' with White House Counsel for impeachment trial

ludin said:
Yes why did Democrats obstruct 7 key witnesses from testifying? That is good to know. They also obstructed one key witness who was in charge of the money from publicly testifying as well.

So why did they do that?
Click to expand...

Wow. So Republicans actually refused to appear after subpoena and you have the audacity to complain about people that you "wanted" to testify.

No honor. No integrity.
 
CaughtInThe said:
All the evidence. Not just the parts you like.

Do you think people should have resisted the supeanas?
Click to expand...

Yep actually. It is legal to fight a subpoenas. If you think your subpoena is good you go to court and defend it. Happens all the time.

If someone has no evidence they have no evidence. Pretty much every witness said they had no evidence. Several witnesses weren't even involved in the thing so there was no reason for them to even be their.

Funny you seem to say not just the parts you like but then you ignore all the parts you don't like.

You point to one person that had actual evidence and I will look at it.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Wow. So Republicans actually refused to appear after subpoena and you have the audacity to complain about people that you "wanted" to testify.

No honor. No integrity.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the difference between fighting a subpoena which is legal to do, and schiff refusing to allow fact witnesses to actually testify. Those same witnesses that schiff used as the basis for the accusation.

So yes we know schiff has no integrity or honor.
 
CaughtInThe said:
If he actually gave Trump a fair trial I'd be thrilled.

Now, if it was up to you would you allow eleven non political people to hear the evidence and render judgment instead of the Republican held Senate?
Click to expand...

Probably not because the whole indictment process was unfair. People shouldn't be just willy nilly indicted with an unfair process. It is unamerican.
 
Moonglow said:
No, it is irrelevant is why..just like calling on a cartoon character you are fixated with.
Just for ****z and gigles what is Hunter going to testify to that which involved what Trump did?
Click to expand...

People should be allowed to call all of the irrelevant witnesses they want. All it can do is harm them. How about leaving it up to John Roberts if the witness is irrelevant or not?
 
i would say that the jury is tainted, but there is no jury. there are a bunch of old white men waiting in line to kiss an orange ass.
 
Moderate Right said:
People should be allowed to call all of the irrelevant witnesses they want. All it can do is harm them. How about leaving it up to John Roberts if the witness is irrelevant or not?
Click to expand...

Schiff called irrelevant people in the hearing so yea nothing stops someone from calling irrelevant people.
 
Helix said:
i would say that the jury is tainted, but there is no jury. there are a bunch of old white men waiting in line to kiss an orange ass.
Click to expand...

The hearing was tainted as well. So I mean you reap what you sow. actually the jury isn't tainted.
The jury will hear the lack of evidence and acquit just like a jury should.
 
Sure are a lot of threads about the turtle and impeachment.

As was said on one of the others, I believe ...

The Chief Justice wouldn't schedule the witnesses, their presentations, or arrange for their appearances.
McConnell would have to find out the plans of the defense and prosecution teams.
He has to talk to Trump and his team as well as find out who is going to present the case.

The presiding officer of the Senate is McConnell so he has to talk to the defense and the prosecution.
Since impeachments aren't precisely like a civil trial McConnell is also part of the jury.
Because he already knows the details of the impeachment articles, how there won't be anything new, and how this impeachment was fore-ordained he also has an opinion about it that he made clear.
​

But if there's an actual "trial" I'm curious about a few things:
1 - what fact witnesses will the prosecution call? They never had any and there needs to be. Speculation and presumptions don't cut it.
2 - The entire Democrat Party can't be called, but a defendant has a right to confront his/her accusers. The accusers essentially were Ciaramella, Schiff, and Schiff's staff. So how do they avoid being sworn in? No one other than most of the Party and most of the media accused the President of an impeachable offense.
3 - The Obstruction of Congress article was torpedoed when the SC decided to review Congress' subpoena of Executive documents and officers. Congress should have offered a legal challenge. Congress can't just declare there is no legal justification like Schiff did again today. So that article can be dismissed.
4 - That leaves the Abuse Of Power charge. It's preposterous on its face, given anything a President does can be mischaracterized - or even accurately characterized - as promoting his or her personal gain.
And the same can be said of Congress and what it does ... only they can't be impeached for it.
 
Moderate Right said:
People should be allowed to call all of the irrelevant witnesses they want. All it can do is harm them. How about leaving it up to John Roberts if the witness is irrelevant or not?
Click to expand...

He is just there to observe. He is not going to interfere or intervene.
 
ludin said:
You don't seem to understand the difference between fighting a subpoena which is legal to do, and schiff refusing to allow fact witnesses to actually testify. Those same witnesses that schiff used as the basis for the accusation.

So yes we know schiff has no integrity or honor.
Click to expand...

I think we all know that a person has a right to fight as subpoena and in this case I think most people are pretty sure why they're fighting it.

Trump has been using this tactic since the 1970s. All you have to do is read about his legal trouble and cases.

What I'm really curious to see play out is, after the Senate trial, what other information is discovered and what other charges will be brought against him. It's not like he has a history of being able to hide stuff forever.

You better start praying in church today that the Supreme Court doesn't allow our Congress their constitutional oversight regarding his taxes. You should also pray that the Supreme Court reverses itself when a democratic president tries to pull the same thing.
 
Moderate Right said:
Probably not because the whole indictment process was unfair. People shouldn't be just willy nilly indicted with an unfair process. It is unamerican.
Click to expand...

Wow. So you wouldn't want our president, our top politician, to be judged in a trial by 11 unbiased people.

Did all you guys read that?
 
Moonglow said:
No, it is irrelevant is why..just like calling on a cartoon character you are fixated with.
Just for ****z and gigles what is Hunter going to testify to that which involved what Trump did?
Click to expand...

Hunter can testify about his own corruption involving Ukraine ... which is what Trump had asked Zelensky to investigate ... which is what Schiff characterized as Trump's personal gain in order to find an impeachable offense
... that the transcript doesn't support.
 
bubbabgone said:
Hunter can testify about his own corruption involving Ukraine ... which is what Trump had asked Zelensky to investigate ... which is what Schiff characterized as Trump's personal gain in order to find an impeachable offense
... that the transcript doesn't support.
Click to expand...

Hunder did not make Trump act in the manner he did.His process of the investigation is what the impeachment is about not what corruption Hunter was up to. Trump is merely trying to get dirt on Joe which I am sure there is yet, it is the manner in which the president used which is the reason for impeachment..
 
ludin said:
The hearing was tainted as well. So I mean you reap what you sow. actually the jury isn't tainted.
The jury will hear the lack of evidence and acquit just like a jury should.
Click to expand...

Fake reality.
 
CaughtInThe said:
I think we all know that a person has a right to fight as subpoena and in this case I think most people are pretty sure why they're fighting it.

Trump has been using this tactic since the 1970s. All you have to do is read about his legal trouble and cases.

What I'm really curious to see play out is, after the Senate trial, what other information is discovered and what other charges will be brought against him. It's not like he has a history of being able to hide stuff forever.

You better start praying in church today that the Supreme Court doesn't allow our Congress their constitutional oversight regarding his taxes. You should also pray that the Supreme Court reverses itself when a democratic president tries to pull the same thing.
Click to expand...

You evidently don't think they do as you said it was illegal. So you don't seem to know what you are talking about or you are confused.

Again it is 100% legal to fight a subpoenas there is nothing illegal about it.

Congress doesn't have oversight over his taxes that is the job of the treasury and irs. I hope they do rule against congress. They have ruled before congress is not a law enforcement agency.

It has been spelled out time and time again that congress is limited to policy and laws and that they must have a legit legislative purpose.

While they can argue that it is to test irs presidental audits this has never been called into question before and they can easily check the process without seeing his tax returns.

They could also test this against other presidents returns without getting trumps. This is nothing more than a fishing expedition which is illegal and unconstitutional. Congress does not have that power nor should they.

I do not believe the privacy laws should be broken for political hackery. You might but I don't.

If congress could do this to the president they can do it to anyone and it is a violation of our rights and freedoms.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Wow. So you wouldn't want our president, our top politician, to be judged in a trial by 11 unbiased people.

Did all you guys read that?
Click to expand...

I don't think people should be on trial due to a very biased and unfair indictment. That's what I object to. How about 11 unbiased and fair people deciding in the first place as to whether Trump should be impeached by the House or not?
 
Moonglow said:
Hunder did not make Trump act in the manner he did.His process of the investigation is what the impeachment is about not what corruption Hunter was up to. Trump is merely trying to get dirt on Joe which I am sure there is yet, it is the manner in which the president used which is the reason for impeachment..
Click to expand...

The president is allowed to open investigations into corruption by us citizens. That is a power given to the executive branch.

They can also end any investigation they want.
 
Moderate Right said:
What explains a lot is the House refusing to have fair hearings.
Click to expand...

So you can't comment on my argument that hte Senate is inherently unfair relative to the justice system's version.
And in return, you claim the House "investigation" was actually unfair, because [no reasons given].

Trump chose not to cooperate at every turn with the investigation, he could have given the records and his testimony, at any time. He chose not to, you're lying.
Later when it went to Judiciary, Trump and counsel were formally extended an invitation. They once again, refused.

You can't reasonably defend Trump, because you're wrong.
 
Moderate Right said:
I don't think people should be on trial due to a very biased and unfair indictment. That's what I object to. How about 11 unbiased and fair people deciding in the first place as to whether Trump should be impeached by the House or not?
Click to expand...

It’s biased because, what, you said so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom