• 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?

Kerry Won Ohio said:
It's only a "process trap" if Trump is guilty. Which he is.

Clinton testifying about bull**** Benghazi for 12 hours wasn't a "process trap"?

You didn't answer my question -- Why does Clinton have more balls than Trump?

And Mulvaney and Bolton will testify. 51 Senators will agree with this. Most Americans want to know the truth about what happened and they will get it, whether you Trump cultists like it or not.
Click to expand...

Your guilty as well.
Time to investigate and find what you are guilty of.
 
GDViking said:
Incapable?

you are aware trump has been Impeached right???
Click to expand...

According to lawyers he isn't until pelosi turns over the articles.
 
Although I am cross-posting much of this from another thread, a practice I hate, there is substance here that needs to be reiterated:

An impeachment is not an indictment, although it has some equivalence, but it is more than that. It is a deliberated determination by a body of Congress. It is its own thing. Trump is Impeached. It is a done thing. The House has spoken. It cannot, as Rep. McCarthy has claimed, be "undone". The next stage of the process is to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. That is a procedural, not a substantive, step. It does not affect the reality of impeachment.

The Senate, as a separate body of Congress, has a separate responsibility. The Senate conducts a "trial". Although undefined, a trial in American jurisprudence has a meaning, an implication, and expectations. The Chief Justice presides. It requires some kind of "due process", although it is not, and explicitly so, a criminal proceeding, and does not import criminal conceptions like "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", "innocent until proven guilty", "cruel and unusual punishments" or a unanimous verdict. To make these arguments is to misapprehend its purpose. The Senate trial is an administrative or "civil" proceeding. Rules of court do not apply - evidence, procedure, etc. The Senate creates the process and establishes its own rules. Some things are expected: Presentation of evidence, opportunity to rebut, arguments. Beyond that, the "trial" is whatever the Senate wants it to be, subject to whatever the presiding Chief Justice might interject.

Moreover, the Senate is extremely limited in its responses. It cannot "unimpeach" the President. It cannot "exonerate" him. It can only "convict" or "not convict" an impeached officer. Upon conviction it can: do nothing, remove him from office, bar him from future office (by a simple majority vote). (By tradition and implication it can impose a lesser punishment, such as censure or reprimand, but that is technically separate from impeachment.) It cannot jail him, banish him or take other punitive actions. In impeachment proceedings the "defendant/respondent" does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty, or property. Indeed, the Constitution so states:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States
Click to expand...
Although, "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law", that is a separate process.

Sure, the Senate majority can "short-circuit" the trial process, but it will be out in the open and offend about 70% of the population who would see that as "unfair". Many of those people would probably vote. So, there is that.

There is a third option that the Senate could consider: They could convict, and merely bar Trump from future office. It is a constitutionally tricky proposition, but might be a compromise for some Senators.
 
No, it hasn’t been decided yet.

The House, of course, countered DoJ’s CYA argument.

A similar argument was rejected out of hand by the District Court, where the DoJ lost the first phase of its case to hide the McGhan testimony.

As for your narrative regarding congressional subpoenas:

There is almost no case law at all for the Courts to reject the authority of a Congressional subpoena. Just about the only argument is Executive Privelege, which Trump knew better than to assert. The bar is high, and it does not apply in Impeachment. So they made up the fake doctrine of absolute immunity.

So far, they have lost in court.

Meanwhile, the House has conducted all the preliminaries and impeached the President. The oral arguments on this motion will be heard Jan 3rd.

It is unlikely that the Administration will prevail. And it is important that they do not ultimately.

Presidents should not be above the law.
 
Mafia like guys never like witnesses testifying.
 
TomFitz said:
Why should anyone waste thier time with this shoddy excuse for dismissing the President’s obvious obstruction of that investigation. His obstruction is one of the charges!

Presumably, Trump could vacate that Article by producing the witnesses and documents he has been illegally hiding (as courts are virtually certain to argue).

But if he does that, he convicts himself on the other charge (or gets acquitted in a transparently political way).

Or, Pelosi can sit on the indictment for as long as she chooses.

Trump is impeached.

He can’t declare himself exhonorated without the trial.
Click to expand...

Actually until she delivers the articles he is not impeached.

Actually she could until the next election cycle where it will die. Until she turns them over according to multiple legal scholars he is not impeached.

Also she is now obstructing congress, abuse of power and extortion. So she really should step down.
 
Hypothetical said:
why would they? so the Dems can latch onto some misspoken word or sentence and say "look see Trump is GUILTY!" BS, if the house wanted to hear from those witnesses they should have taken the time to go to SCOTUS to compel them and been more thorough in their investigation. as it is they have nothing. I see no reason Reps should do their job for them.. after all, as we always hear, this is a POLITICAL process.
Click to expand...

Why would they?

Because the American people deserve the truth, and i mean the WHOLE truth!!!

This is an impeachment, the "president" has been proven to be corrupt.

It is the Senate's job to get to the facts, it is not their job to protect the president!!!

Why in the **** don't Republicans get this?!?
 
Paradoxical said:
RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA

PUTIN PUTIN PUTIN

Polly wanna cracker? AWKKK AWKKK
Click to expand...

Bringing to attention the number two enemy of America (trump being number one) is an act of patriotism.

To deny the Russian attack on America is an act of treason!!!
 
Moderate Right said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no rule stating that. The Dems will get the rest of the evidence after impeachment if they want to. Why should they allow Trump to run out the clock before they impeach him?

If Trump is innocent, then you have nothing to worry about. But you know he is guilty, just like McConnell does.
 
GDViking said:
Bringing to attention the number two enemy of America (trump being number one) is an act of patriotism.

To deny the Russian attack on America is an act of treason!!!
Click to expand...

I so wish one of the Dems would go out and say hey Iran Cuba Egypt hell the whole content of Africa who got dirt on Trump? The GOP would have a s h i t fit. Lol. And remember is okay now because they just canadates. The truth is the only reason the GOP have no problems with Russia is because it's a white nation. Also the GOP wants to be ruled they long for the day of a dictator or king. Oh so un-america. What a strange political party.
 
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...

They sold their souls and all they got was a cheap red hat.
 
NWRatCon said:
This is what is called "compounded stupidity". You make the same idiotic argument, but add a few extra words this time. It has never made sense, it doesn't work like that, and repeating yourself ad nauseum doesn't change the vacuity of your position.
Click to expand...

Did they have enough evidence to impeach or not? If they did then they don't need more evidence and it is crackers to tell the senate that it is their job to come up with the evidence. That's what the House was supposed to do.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
It's only a "process trap" if Trump is guilty. Which he is.

Clinton testifying about bull**** Benghazi for 12 hours wasn't a "process trap"?

You didn't answer my question -- Why does Clinton have more balls than Trump?

And Mulvaney and Bolton will testify. 51 Senators will agree with this. Most Americans want to know the truth about what happened and they will get it, whether you Trump cultists like it or not.
Click to expand...

bull****...lmfao

omg...you people are so easy to read

you want Trump and his people to fall into the same idiotic trap slick Willie fell into

sorry...but isnt going to happen

that is your last ditch hope to make something out of this crap that Pelosi got herself into to

good luck with it....you are going to need it
 
TomFitz said:
She has the option of not letting him wait it out.

She can drop the hammer any time. Now that McConnell and the GOP Senators got out over their skis by openly declaring their intention to collude with the defendant, every turn in the discussion over witnesses will accrue against the Republicans.

It’s clear to even the most disconnected people that Trump has no defense, and obstruction is his only play.

Let that hang in the air, and Trump’s acquittal will be a hollow victory. Indeed, if Trump bellows and declared himself exhonorated again, it will be even more hollow.

Because the public has seen this before. Few believed the right wing talking points about the Mueller Report.

And fewer still will believe that Trump is really exhonorated if the Senate lets him off the hook.

Plus, Trump will brag that he got away with it, and go out and try and do it again, or collude even more openly this time.
Click to expand...

i guess we will see how this plays out in 2020

i know where my money is going....

and i am pretty confident at this point....are you?
 
TomFitz said:
She has the option of not letting him wait it out.

She can drop the hammer any time. Now that McConnell and the GOP Senators got out over their skis by openly declaring their intention to collude with the defendant, every turn in the discussion over witnesses will accrue against the Republicans.

It’s clear to even the most disconnected people that Trump has no defense, and obstruction is his only play.

Let that hang in the air, and Trump’s acquittal will be a hollow victory. Indeed, if Trump bellows and declared himself exhonorated again, it will be even more hollow.

Because the public has seen this before. Few believed the right wing talking points about the Mueller Report.

And fewer still will believe that Trump is really exhonorated if the Senate lets him off the hook.

Plus, Trump will brag that he got away with it, and go out and try and do it again, or collude even more openly this time.
Click to expand...

Yip, this impeachment is not about whether or not trump is corrupt, everyone knows he is.

This impeachment is about if that is okay in todays America.

Those of us that stand for what this country was built on do not believe that having a corrupt criminal president is a good call...
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
There is no rule stating that. The Dems will get the rest of the evidence after impeachment if they want to. Why should they allow Trump to run out the clock before they impeach him?

If Trump is innocent, then you have nothing to worry about. But you know he is guilty, just like McConnell does.
Click to expand...

Guilty of what? You guys claim there was bribery. Every witnesses testified there was no bribery. It's not the Senate's job to prove your case. It is the House's job and the Senators are the jurors. It is ridiculous to claim that jurors need to come up with the evidence against the person being tried. It is insane.
 
At what point does repeated recitation of the same stupidity constitute "spamming" the thread? I suppose I could just keep posting this. Or maybe just shorten it for the intelligence-impaired: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Article I, Section 3, clause 6.
 
Moderate Right said:
Guilty of what? You guys claim there was bribery. Every witnesses testified there was no bribery. It's not the Senate's job to prove your case. It is the House's job and the Senators are the jurors. It is ridiculous to claim that jurors need to come up with the evidence against the person being tried. It is insane.
Click to expand...

 
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...

Because country and duty to the US Constitution. FFS are there no Americans left?
 
Moderate Right said:
I don't watch cartoons. If I wanted to do that I would turn on the television. If you want to debate with me you have to come up with something better than cartoons.
Click to expand...

It's a free internet last I checked do whatever the hell you want.

Yeah your party wants a dictator or king you don't deal in facts your party is mad about everything. There is no more debit to have he is impeech 4 of his guys are in jail and you the grand old party keep crying. How is all this winning going for you all?
 
Last edited:
Jaygodmedia said:
It's a free internet last I checked do whatever the hell you want.

Yeah your party wants a dictator or king you don't deal in facts your party is mad about everything. There is no more debit to have he is impeech 4 of his guys are in jail and you the grand old party keep crying. How is all this winning going for you all?
Click to expand...

LOL. The fact is your party has been nothing but mad for three years now. They have taken the term "sore losers" to an entirely new level. They have even gone on to say that no crimes are even needed to impeach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom