• 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!

No Evidence.............

less right said:
On a case-by-case basis. It's not executive privilege when you deny access to all the documents and witnesses across the executive branch.
Click to expand...
And these instances were a case by case basis? Congress didn't asks for everyone who works in the White and every document stored there, did they? The asked for specific people (cases) and documents (cases).
 
Lutherf said:
There is no law in what's happening with this impeachment. It's 100% Democrat politics and 100% Democrats making up law as they go along.
Click to expand...

And they are still trying to make up laws as I type this. This is the first time I have seen Shifty Schiff not with just one set of bags under his eye, he now has two!
 
Bullseye said:
And these instances were a case by case basis? Congress didn't asks for everyone who works in the White and every document stored there, did they? The asked for specific people (cases) and documents (cases).
Click to expand...

And he blocked them all. Wherever they occurred. I don't think he did it on a case-by-case basis though. His lawyer said they would not comply, period.
 
Craig234 said:
That's actually not true; while not applicable in impeachment, some trials see defendants simply base the defense on saying the prosecution didn't prove its case, and present nothing exculpatory.
Click to expand...

IMO the democrats have proven their case by showing enough evidence, despite the stonewalling, to bring 10 cases to conviction.
 
The GOP has made a complete joke of any concept of facts, reality, law, or justice.

But you know what they say: you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. The American people, and history, are watching. If the GOP keeps this up, they will eventually have hell to pay.
 
Actually the Democrats in the Senate do NOT want witnesses called. Rather, they just want the Republicans to vote not to allow witnesses.

Witnesses puts the Bidens, Schiff, Obama and many more as potential witnesses, plus Republicans could call endless numbers of pro-Trump witnesses dragging this out thru the entire Democratic Primary - keeping Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar virtually completely out of the campaign and invisible to the media - with it clearly the Trumps versus the Bidens. Then, with those others blown out, Republicans used the "trail" to "Benghazi" Biden and his bribery and extortion for his own kids in China, Ukraine, Jamaica, probably half a dozen other countries and mega million and billion dollar domestic contracts, for which his kids and brother always receive a HUGE cut to the federal money involve in absurd so-called employment on the board or as head of the entire project - NEVER having ANY education or experience in the project.
 
HumblePi said:
IMO the democrats have proven their case by showing enough evidence, despite the stonewalling, to bring 10 cases to conviction.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The topic though was the claim that a defendant in a trial always produces exculpatory evidence.
 
If the Articles of Impeachment do not actually state the basis for impeachment, then there should be no witnesses because there is nothing to hear witnesses about. Abuse of Power is not grounds for impeaching or removal from office - despite all the contortions and rationalizations trying to put in words that aren't there.

When the Democratic House committee surrendered to Joe Biden by leaving out "bribery/extortion" - so that then wasn't leveled at him too - the Democratic House Committee threw out having sufficient pleading under the actual provisions of the US Constitution.

"Abuse of Power" could be ANYTHING. Cutting in front of the line at a White House dinner could be called "abuse of power." Telling the driver of the President's car to go faster than the speed limit is "abuse of power."

An indictment has to be specific, not just it-could-mean-anything generalizations.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
And they are still trying to make up laws as I type this. This is the first time I have seen Shifty Schiff not with just one set of bags under his eye, he now has two!
Click to expand...

You find something wrong with their subpoenaing witnesses and evidence key to getting to the truth? That's a rhetorical question for someone who is against justice.
 
Bullseye said:
LOL, Do I need to post the meter again? There is nothing in this entire situation that demonstrably rises to any form of crime. As President he has the authority to time or even withhold delivery of aid (per the LTCOL would testified in the House), the Ukraine President says he felt no pressure as was unaware of the holdup with the aid. There's certainly enough questionable about Hunter Biden's Ukraine employment - even he admits being the VP's son got him the job. Where's the beef?
Click to expand...

The president has the authority to authorize military strikes. Does this mean he can legally bomb a school in Providence, Rhode Island for no reason?

Authority over a particular activity doesn't mean every conceivable outcome of that activity is legal. Do you agree?
 
joko104 said:
Abuse of Power is not grounds for impeaching or removal from office - despite all the contortions and rationalizations trying to put in words that aren't there.
Click to expand...

Because... what? You say so?

Listen to yourself. You believe abusing the power of office isn't a problem! Pathetic. Unamerican.
 
Rep Andy Biggs
@RepAndyBiggsAZ
·
12h
Schiff Argument #1: We can't have a fair Senate trial w/o the documents & witnesses we didn't call in the House when we had the power. The trial will be RIGGED without them.

Schiff Argument #2: The evidence is OVERWHELMING against
@realDonaldTrump
.

He can't have it both ways.

Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) | Twitter
 
trixare4kids said:
Rep Andy Biggs
@RepAndyBiggsAZ
·
12h
Schiff Argument #1: We can't have a fair Senate trial w/o the documents & witnesses we didn't call in the House when we had the power. The trial will be RIGGED without them.

Schiff Argument #2: The evidence is OVERWHELMING against
@realDonaldTrump
.

He can't have it both ways.

Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) | Twitter
Click to expand...

The documents and witnesses Trump blocked from testifying/being reviewed? That's the argument you wanna bank on? :lamo

You're really claiming these documents weren't subpoenea'd? That the house didn't ask these people to testify? Good lord, where did you get that idea?
 
HumblePi said:
IMO the democrats have proven their case by showing enough evidence, despite the stonewalling, to bring 10 cases to conviction.
Click to expand...

The Democrats haven't proven anything as grounds for impeachment.

"Your honor, the Defendant did not agree to allow his attorney to testify to what they privately discussed, his wife refuses to testify, he used legal technicalities to have evidence banned from the trial, and two witnesses refuse to testify taking the 5th amendment for the benefit of the defendant. If anything shows the Defendant is hiding something and is guilty, this all proves it."

Not only could a jury never hear those words, if the Prosecutor quick blurted that out, the trial would be ended then and there as all of it is inadmissible to tell a jury and is something that is too prejudicial to address merely with an objection.

While I understand the Democratic Party WANTS all due process, rules of court and rules of evidence eliminated entirely and replaced with a strict presumption of guilt, that isn't how it works.
 
trixare4kids said:
Rep Andy Biggs
@RepAndyBiggsAZ
·
12h
Schiff Argument #1: We can't have a fair Senate trial w/o the documents & witnesses we didn't call in the House when we had the power. The trial will be RIGGED without them.

Schiff Argument #2: The evidence is OVERWHELMING against
@realDonaldTrump
.

He can't have it both ways.

Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) | Twitter
Click to expand...

^ Thread win
 
joko104 said:
^ Thread win
Click to expand...

Based on the laughable idea that Democrats never asked for the witnesses and evidence Trump is blocking. :lamo

God, you people just immediately accept as fact anything you're told.
 
Deuce said:
The documents and witnesses Trump blocked from testifying/being reviewed? That's the argument you wanna bank on? :lamo

You're really claiming these documents weren't subpoenea'd? That the house didn't ask these people to testify? Good lord, where did you get that idea?
Click to expand...

So tell us why didn't the Democrats subpoena Bolton to testify prior to sending the impeachment articles over?
Why didn't the Democrats go to the courts to press the issue prior to sending the impeachment articles over?
Why now?
 
Deuce said:
Because... what? You say so?

Listen to yourself. You believe abusing the power of office isn't a problem! Pathetic. Unamerican.
Click to expand...

Obama was a study in "abuse of power." Every president has abused their power. So does about everyone in Congress.

Sob and rant all you want, "abuse of power" is not a basis for impeachment in the US Constitution. On behalf of Joe Biden, they opted NOT to use "bribery/extortion." When they did, they erased having prima facie Article of Impeachment as required by the US Constitution.
 
joko104 said:
^ Thread win
Click to expand...

His twitter feed is what is outstanding.

He doesn't pull any punches as to what the crooked Dems. are really going on about...
 
Craig234 said:
You find something wrong with their subpoenaing witnesses and evidence key to getting to the truth? That's a rhetorical question for someone who is against justice.
Click to expand...

Baloney. I listened to Schiff all day trying to make the point that witnesses need to be called. What is missing is the fact that he and his cohorts thought they had enough to impeach this president without the testimony of certain persons. So damn it present the case they thought was good enough for Democrats to vote to impeach Trump in the House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is bull**** and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it is bull****.
 
Deuce said:
The president has the authority to authorize military strikes. Does this mean he can legally bomb a school in Providence, Rhode Island for no reason?
Click to expand...
What if there were no stupid questions?
Deuce said:
Authority over a particular activity doesn't mean every conceivable outcome of that activity is legal. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
No it means authority to take a specific action.
 
Luckyone said:
. . . .
Why are the Republicans being partisan on this?
Click to expand...

Why did the Democrats make their articles of impeachment and the process to arrive at them so partisan?
And please don't insult my intelligence by claiming it wasn't.

Is evidence a political thing?
Click to expand...

Producing the evidence for the Senate to hear was the House's job, as defined by the Constitution. They didn't bother to do it, or do it well enough or sufficiently enough to warrant articles of impeachment. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom