• 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!

Why not call the witnesses requested by the Dems?

Captain Adverse said:
There were 65 million citizens who voted against Trump in 2016. You are impressed by a few hundred "legal scholars" signing another "letter?" :coffeepap:
Click to expand...
A) it was 72 million, B) of course they don't matter, they're scholars. Everyone knows that Trump and his followers despise anyone who has a better education than them. That is, basically, everyone.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
Those people who signed the letters back in 2016 were correct. Trump should NOT be President. He is bad for the country, as the past 3 years have illustrated.

He is mentally unfit for the job, he is corrupt, he is a racist, and he is a traitor doing Putin's bidding.
Click to expand...

I don't know why or is that people defending Trump have so much difficulty stringing together a line of logic that is more than one concept deep. E.g., Anyone who has ever opposed Trump just "hates him"; everyone who voted to impeach him had been after him since before he was born. It's just stupidity multiplied by a factor of 72 million.
 
Moot said:
So what kind of trial will the Senate have if the Senators aren't allowed to question the fact based witnesses such as Mulvaney, Duffy, McGabe and Bolton? How can the president prove his innocence if he's not allowed to be questioned under oath? Until those witnesses and Trump testify under oath he will never be truly exonerated. Trump refused to testify under oath to the Special Counsel as well and so Mueller couldn't exonerate him there, either. In fact, there's an investigation going on right now to see if Trump lied on his written answers.

Trump written answers to Mueller investigation investigated by House of Representatives to see if president lied - CBS News
Click to expand...

These arguments that the Senate doesn't "need" fact witnesses to conduct a trial are the most idiotic, dishonest, logic-free assertions possible. It's pretty straightforward,, really. 1) The second article of impeachment is for obstruction, so preventing witness testimony pretty much proves the case. 2) Trump provided no fact witnesses to counter the first charge, so he has no facts to secure an acquittal. The same people will argue that direct fact witnesses are "unnecessary" and then claim it is all "hearsay" - which isn't even a "thing" in impeachment. The sheen on a highway from dew is deeper than their claims. Only idiots would present such nonsense or accept it.
 
independentusa said:
They are supposed to be the eye witnesses to what happened in the Ukraine cse . Please do not say executive privilege as Trump has never said he was claiming executive privilege. He claims total presidential immunity. Now tell me where in the constitution it says that the president has "total presidential immunity" please. And even if he did claim executive privilege, it ends when the impeachment trial begins. So tell me a good and "logical" reason that these witnesses should not testify to insure that all evidence is available to those senators deciding the case?
Click to expand...

Either you had enough evidence to impeach or you didn't. You don't impeach a president first and then find the evidence later. If you had enough evidence to impeach then you don't need more evidence, you've already got enough. If your case is so flimsy that you need more evidence then you should have held off on impeachment until you had more evidence.
 
snakestretcher said:
From what I understand of US law only the president can hide behind executive privilege. His employees cannot. The only reason Trump is acting this way is from fear. 'Executive privilege' is mentioned nowhere in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Executive privilege from Congress is an oxymoron. It is the opposite of rational. Congress passes laws. The executive executes the laws passed by Congress. It's like trying to keep the books from the owner - of course he has the right to see them. The only rational basis for asserting executive privilege is to prevent exposure of government secrets in the public sphere for national interests. It is judicially created, extremely narrow, and evaporates when not invoked. Those on this forum claiming it applies are just mendacious. Congress is the government.
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
These arguments that the Senate doesn't "need" fact witnesses to conduct a trial are the most idiotic, dishonest, logic-free assertions possible. It's pretty straightforward,, really. 1) The second article of impeachment is for obstruction, so preventing witness testimony pretty much proves the case. 2) Trump provided no fact witnesses to counter the first charge, so he has no facts to secure an acquittal. The same people will argue that direct fact witnesses are "unnecessary" and then claim it is all "hearsay" - which isn't even a "thing" in impeachment. The sheen on a highway from dew is deeper than their claims. Only idiots would present such nonsense or accept it.
Click to expand...
Obama should have been impeached then.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
Wrong. Here, let me correct you once again. You can thank me later:

More than 500 legal scholars sign letter saying Trump committed 'impeachable conduct' - CNNPolitics

The Democrats did an absolutely splendid job proving their case during the impeachment proceedings, according to these 500 legal scholars.
Click to expand...

We do not care what 500 butt hurt leftist have to say. Their opinion is irrelevant.

There was 0 evidence presented to fit the charges which is why trump was not charged with any of those crimes.

None of the witnesses have first hand knowledge or evidence of what he was accused of.

It was pretty obvious because they were asked do you have evidence. They said no.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
Those people who signed the letters back in 2016 were correct. Trump should NOT be President. He is bad for the country, as the past 3 years have illustrated.

He is mentally unfit for the job, he is corrupt, he is a racist, and he is a traitor doing Putin's bidding.
Click to expand...

The conspiracy theory forum is ------>
 
ataraxia said:
So wait, let me see if I have this straight: they don’t have any direct witnesses because the Whitehorse has blocked them from testifying, and they can’t compel them to testify because of executive privilege.

Yeah, that doesn’t sound at all like wiping your behind with the “system of checks and balances” intended by the founders in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

All 100% legal. If they don't like it they can fight it in court. They chose not too.
 
Moderate Right said:
Either you had enough evidence to impeach or you didn't. You don't impeach a president first and then find the evidence later. If you had enough evidence to impeach then you don't need more evidence, you've already got enough. If your case is so flimsy that you need more evidence then you should have held off on impeachment until you had more evidence.
Click to expand...

Your trying to apply logic and reason to people that do not understand these concepts is impossible.
 
Paradoxical said:
Obama should have been impeached then.
Click to expand...

Are you really just trying to present the stupidest, most dishonest argument possible? You succeed far too often, if that is the case.
 
Condor060 said:
First off, Democrats have no witnesses that can testify in a federal court. Every witness they called in the hearings are hearsay witnesses only. Every one of them stated under Republican questioning they had no personal knowledge of any impeachable crimes.

Second, Since Democrats don't have a single witness that can testify, there is no need to have witnesses testify for the defense. No where in the history of this country does the defense put on witnesses when there are no witnesses to testify to any crimes.
Click to expand...

Huh. Complete and utter lies from you.

WHAT a surprise!

Merry dishonesty!
 
eohrnberger said:
In the impeachment process, isn't the House supposed to do the investigation and the drafting of the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate to hear the results of the House investigation and sit in judgment of the case presented?

Why should the Senate exceed their role and do part of the House's role which they were clearly incapable or fulfilling?
Click to expand...

Not logical! If you want the whole truth instead of what Trump wants, they need to testify. If you want just a show trial, then your statement makes sense.
 
NWRatCon said:
These arguments that the Senate doesn't "need" fact witnesses to conduct a trial are the most idiotic, dishonest, logic-free assertions possible.
Click to expand...

Its called the federal rules of evidence and witnesses. If you don't even know that hearsay witness testimony isn't allowed in a courtroom, how can you even discuss the impeachment?

1) The second article of impeachment is for obstruction, so preventing witness testimony pretty much proves the case.
Click to expand...

Every president and his staff have immunity from Congressional hearings. You can't have obstruction of Congressional hearings.

2) Trump provided no fact witnesses to counter the first charge, so he has no facts to secure an acquittal.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have too. Defendants are never charged with proving their innocence. Only the prosecution needs to prove their case.

The same people will argue that direct fact witnesses are "unnecessary" and then claim it is all "hearsay" - which isn't even a "thing" in impeachment.
Click to expand...

Schiff refused to allow Republican witnesses and refused to allow Republicans their minority day. You can have anyone you want in a Congressional hearing but every witness brought forward by Democrats stated under oath during Republican questioning they have no personal knowledge of any bribery, quid pro quos, or any impeachable crimes.

Never in the history of American courtrooms have we allowed people to testify to what they presume. Only 1st hand witnesses (Or fact witnesses) are allowed to testify in a federal court. The fact that you don't know this dismisses you as not even knowing the most basic of evidence and witness rules adopted by every civil and federal court in the US.
 
RetiredUSN said:
500 Democrat lawyers.........................that's a big whoooop!

You can get 500 lawyers to chew acorns while sitting in a busy intersection if they get some sort of benefit.
Click to expand...

Oh dear...another Trump cultist who thinks he knows more than 500 legal experts. Why am I not surprised?
 
ludin said:
We do not care what 500 butt hurt leftist have to say. Their opinion is irrelevant.

There was 0 evidence presented to fit the charges which is why trump was not charged with any of those crimes.

None of the witnesses have first hand knowledge or evidence of what he was accused of.

It was pretty obvious because they were asked do you have evidence. They said no.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't care. You don't care about facts or reason. You don't listen to legal scholars who know more than you.

You take pride in your ignorance and your know-it-all attitude. Hence, this is why you are a Trump cultist in the first place.
 
Condor060 said:
And how many of your 500 legal scholars will testify? NONE.

How many of your legal scholars are witnesses to anything? NONE

How many witnesses do you have that can testify? NONE

ANd what is the evidence you have for a trial? NONE

THis is what happens when you kneel at the altar of CNN. Weren't these the same 500 Legal Scholars that said the evidence of Trump being a planted Russia asset would remove him from office right before the Mueller report? I remember that petition as well.

(Hint) A Petition isn't evidence of anything. Its as worthless as all 17 witnesses who testified in the hearings. An impeachment article is supposed to carry as much power as an indictment. When was the last time a prosecutor got an indictment against a defendant, then refused to proceed with a trial.

(Hint) NEVER in the history of the country.

By the way, just how many petitions have been signed stating Trump is (X) since he took office? Democrats are the most gullible people on the planet.
Click to expand...

Pelosi and Schumer will eventually get their way. They will get 51 votes in the Senate to hear all of the witnesses and all of the evidence during the trial.

McConnell and you Trump cultists will not be able to stop it, no matter how much you whine and cry about it.
 
Moderate Right said:
Either you had enough evidence to impeach or you didn't. You don't impeach a president first and then find the evidence later. If you had enough evidence to impeach then you don't need more evidence, you've already got enough. If your case is so flimsy that you need more evidence then you should have held off on impeachment until you had more evidence.
Click to expand...

We've got enough evidence. We just want more -- testimony from Bolton and Mulvaney. And we will get it. Or no trial.
 
independentusa said:
Not logical! If you want the whole truth instead of what Trump wants, they need to testify. If you want just a show trial, then your statement makes sense.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Why is it that a certain class of poster here fails to realize that others of us actually think about this process? Is independent thought even possible? The Senate is supposed to conduct a "trial". A trial is supposed to consist of presenting evidence before an impartial, deliberative body for a determination on the facts presented. It seems impossible for some to carry on a consistent line of thought through an entire sentence, much less a paragraph or, god forbid, a multi-paragraph post! It's like the brain turns off and the parrot takes over.

In no other forum, in the United States, does a "trial" consist of rehashing investigative notes and conclusions without a fresh hearing of evidence. Maybe in China, the former Soviet Union, or Russia. But not here. We're AMERICANS.
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
I don't know why or is that people defending Trump have so much difficulty stringing together a line of logic that is more than one concept deep. E.g., Anyone who has ever opposed Trump just "hates him"; everyone who voted to impeach him had been after him since before he was born. It's just stupidity multiplied by a factor of 72 million.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, quite a few Trump cultists understand that Trump has serious flaws.

This is the root of the problem -- their hatred of Democrats and liberals overrides any concerns they might have about Trump. That's why they don't care if Trump is innocent or guilty. Defeating the hated Democrats is more important to them.

Well, Trump cultists also like the fact that Trump is a bully and a racist. They might not agree with everything that Trump says, but they like the way he says it because they are bullies and racists as well.
 
If Pelosi and her fellow democrats wanted these witnesses to testify, i guess they should have waited for the courts to rule

Isnt that the way our system works?

When the executive and legislative branches have a disagreement, they work it out in court

For some reason, the democrats rushed to impeach....now they are trying to "guilt" the GOP into giving in what they refused to fight for?

fat freaking chance.....

It was Pelosi's choice to impeach....her choice to move ahead so quickly....and her choice to forego the verdict from the courts....

This is ALL ON HER....
 
Fletch said:
The check and balance in such cases are provided by the courts. The House didnt want to wait for the courts to weigh in though. So take it up with your tribe. They are the ones who didnt want to follow the Constitutional process.
Click to expand...

The Democrats didn't want to wait and they didn't have to wait. Good for them. Time for Trump, Mulvaney, and Bolton to testify.
 
Hypothetical said:
the SCOTUS can absolutely compel them to testify, if they deem it correct. for some reason the dems didn't want to wait on a thorough process to do so, so too bad for them, because their evidence is crap as of right now.
Click to expand...

Better question for you to ask yourself is why won't Trump turn over the documents and testify himself?

After all, Hillary Clinton testified to a bunch of hostile Repugs for 12 hours about bull**** Benghazi.

Why does Clinton have more balls than Trump? Could it be because Clinton was innocent and Trump is not?
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
We've got enough evidence. We just want more -- testimony from Bolton and Mulvaney. And we will get it. Or no trial.
Click to expand...

If you've got enough evidence to impeach then you don't need more evidence. That is nothing but an admission that the evidence you have is very weak so you need more. You should have gotten the stronger evidence before you impeached.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
The Democrats didn't want to wait and they didn't have to wait. Good for them. Time for Trump, Mulvaney, and Bolton to testify.
Click to expand...

They dont need to testify and they wont. The time to make the case for impeachment has passed. It is now time for the House to make its case to the jury, the Senate. If you wanted more witnesses, the House should have called them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom