• 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!

WH documents vote

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,281
Reaction score
82,665
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
With a straight party vote, the Senate refuses to request/subpoena trial documents from the Trump White House.

Those documents include the records of meetings and calls between President Trump and the president of Ukraine, as well as those records created or received by ... White House personnel about the decision to hold and release the military assistance to Ukraine.

The GOP sham trial is now underway.
 
Rogue Valley said:
With a straight party vote, the Senate refuses to request/subpoena trial documents from the Trump White House.

Those documents include the records of meetings and calls between President Trump and the president of Ukraine, as well as those records created or received by ... White House personnel about the decision to hold and release the military assistance to Ukraine.

The GOP sham trial is now underway.
Click to expand...

It is not customary for a jury (in this case the Senate) to decide whether or not the prosecution may exercise subpoena power to properly prepare/present its case. It was the responsibility (duty?) of the House (as the prosecutor) to secure any required documents/records prior to taking the case to trial.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not customary for a jury (in this case the Senate) to decide whether or not the prosecution may exercise subpoena power to properly prepare/present its case. It was the responsibility (duty?) of the House (as the prosecutor) to secure any required documents/records prior to taking the case to trial.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it's not unusual at all for new evidence or witnesses to be requested by the prosecution at trail - happens all the time - hell, it happened in the Clinton trial.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not customary for a jury (in this case the Senate) to decide whether or not the prosecution may exercise subpoena power to properly prepare/present its case. It was the responsibility (duty?) of the House (as the prosecutor) to secure any required documents/records prior to taking the case to trial.
Click to expand...

How can you say it's not customary? Of course it is especially when new evidence comes to light.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not customary for a jury (in this case the Senate) to decide whether or not the prosecution may exercise subpoena power to properly prepare/present its case. It was the responsibility (duty?) of the House (as the prosecutor) to secure any required documents/records prior to taking the case to trial.
Click to expand...

And how was that possible if the WH refused to comply with House requests and subpoena's?

In every impeachment trial (presidential and judicial) additional witnesses and documents were not only allowed but demanded by both parties.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not customary for a jury (in this case the Senate) to decide whether or not the prosecution may exercise subpoena power to properly prepare/present its case. It was the responsibility (duty?) of the House (as the prosecutor) to secure any required documents/records prior to taking the case to trial.
Click to expand...

Are you saying new evidence/witnesses are not allowed to be brought into a courtroom after charges are made?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not customary for a jury (in this case the Senate) to decide whether or not the prosecution may exercise subpoena power to properly prepare/present its case. It was the responsibility (duty?) of the House (as the prosecutor) to secure any required documents/records prior to taking the case to trial.
Click to expand...

And refusing to comply with a subpoena would be obstruction... Any coincidence that the second article of impeachment is obstruction?
 
Geoist said:
Are you saying new evidence/witnesses are not allowed to be brought into a courtroom after charges are made?
Click to expand...

Not at all, I'm just saying that it is not up to the jury to decide such matters.
 
BlueTex said:
And refusing to comply with a subpoena would be obstruction... Any coincidence that the second article of impeachment is obstruction?
Click to expand...

Nope, but that was known going in. Do you think that the Senate has the power to override (overrule?) a claim of executive privilege?
 
:lamo

The idiot leftists in the House failed to do their job, conducted an embarrassing sham of an impeachment hearing, voted on party lines for a case that was so bad that even some in their own party couldnt stomach it...and now they are ****ting themselves because they cant force the senate to complete their hit job.

What a shocker.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not at all, I'm just saying that it is not up to the jury to decide such matters.
Click to expand...

Does a typical jury determine the rules of the courtroom? Because that is exactly what they are doing here.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, but that was known going in. Do you think that the Senate has the power to override (overrule?) a claim of executive privilege?
Click to expand...

Absolutely they do... Is this a serious question?
 
Geoist said:
Does a typical jury determine the rules of the courtroom? Because that is exactly what they are doing here.
Click to expand...

That is a power granted the Senate by the Constitution is it not? Many had no problem with the House determining rules for its part of the impeachment process. This is simply what happens with partisan politics.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, but that was known going in. Do you think that the Senate has the power to override (overrule?) a claim of executive privilege?
Click to expand...

This was already decided by SCOTUS towards the end of the Nixon Administration...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a power granted the Senate by the Constitution is it not?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I'm just pointing out this is not a typical jury (as you seemed to imply). If Trump is innocent and it was a perfect phone call then why is he so afraid of witnesses and evidence coming to light?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not customary for a jury (in this case the Senate) to decide whether or not the prosecution may exercise subpoena power to properly prepare/present its case. It was the responsibility (duty?) of the House (as the prosecutor) to secure any required documents/records prior to taking the case to trial.
Click to expand...

This is an impeachment and the subpoenas the House filed were not obeyed by the Whitehouse. This was an attempt to get Trump to defend himself and it failed. He has no defense apparently.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not customary for a jury (in this case the Senate) to decide whether or not the prosecution may exercise subpoena power to properly prepare/present its case. It was the responsibility (duty?) of the House (as the prosecutor) to secure any required documents/records prior to taking the case to trial.
Click to expand...

Why, when you know that is absolute hogwash, do you even try to get that through the BS detectors?
 
Geoist said:
Absolutely. I'm just pointing out this is not a typical jury (as you seemed to imply). If Trump is innocent and it was a perfect phone call then why is he so afraid of witnesses and evidence coming to light?
Click to expand...

You would have to ask Trump about that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not customary for a jury (in this case the Senate) to decide whether or not the prosecution may exercise subpoena power to properly prepare/present its case. It was the responsibility (duty?) of the House (as the prosecutor) to secure any required documents/records prior to taking the case to trial.
Click to expand...

I heard one or some of the subpoenas were unauthorized

I heard that one of Bolton's assistants went to court bc of his subpoena and then the House just said Forget it.. dropped the whole thing.. probably bc Ds knew how the court would rule

I am wondering what makes a subpoena "authorized" when it comes from Congress? You mean Congress doesn't have unlimited power to issue them?

how sad..
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, but that was known going in. Do you think that the Senate has the power to override (overrule?) a claim of executive privilege?
Click to expand...

No executive privilege has been invoked and that makes that a moot point. You do understand the President must invoke executive privilege and document where and why it is being applied. It is not a blanket immunity from providing any information to Congress.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not customary for a jury (in this case the Senate) to decide whether or not the prosecution may exercise subpoena power to properly prepare/present its case. It was the responsibility (duty?) of the House (as the prosecutor) to secure any required documents/records prior to taking the case to trial.
Click to expand...

Just because EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT in US history has followed that pattern? C'mon, man. You're being as dishonest as Trump's lawyers. I think, by the way, that they forgot their ethical duties as attorneys. I'm serious, here -
Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
Click to expand...
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

The idiot leftists in the House failed to do their job, conducted an embarrassing sham of an impeachment hearing, voted on party lines for a case that was so bad that even some in their own party couldnt stomach it...and now they are ****ting themselves because they cant force the senate to complete their hit job.

What a shocker.
Click to expand...
whoda thunk it?!

I mean, you know.. after Lois Lerner

Fast and Furious
Benghazi

wipe the server clean Queen Hill

using govt power to influence an election/over-turn one?

------
 
EO1U5CKWAAIxPPW.jpg


In the pic above, both Lt. Col. Vindman and Jennifer Williams testified that there was more on the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskyy than the White House memorandum of the call included.

Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the call also referenced Burisma but the WH would not allow him to correct the revised notes. The call data was then placed on a highly secure White House server.

Why is Trump hiding everything said on the July 25 "perfect" call? Why was the July 25 call memorandum "bleached"?

Without something as basic as the July 25 call transcript made available, how can the Senate jurors possibly arrive at a fair understanding of events?

This is what Trump and McConnell don't want Americans to know. Just how deep the cancer is in the Trump administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom